Use of trolamine to prevent and treat acute radiation dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Amanda Gomes de Menêses, Paula Elaine Diniz Dos Reis, Eliete Neves Silva Guerra and 2 others
PMID 29742271WHAT IT FOUND
Trolamine did not prevent acute radiation dermatitis better than controls in this review.
The pooled result showed no difference, and the evidence quality was very low.
Key findings
01Pooled across included studies, trolamine showed no difference from controls for preventing radiation dermatitis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14).
02The review rated the evidence for the outcomes assessed as very low quality, meaning the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate.
03All included studies evaluated trolamine for prevention, and only one evaluated it as treatment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review rated the evidence as very low, mainly because of important limitations and inconsistency. Several included studies had unclear or high risk of bias, and only one was judged to have low risk in all domains. Only one study evaluated trolamine as treatment rather than prevention. Publication bias could not be assessed because there were few trials per subgroup. The included studies varied in cancer type, control products, application frequency, and dermatitis rating scales. Some patients also received concurrent chemotherapy or tamoxifen, so the contribution of trolamine alone cannot be separated.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read a single study's reported benefit as proof that trolamine works overall. The pooled prevention result was null, the evidence was very low, and some patients also received concurrent chemotherapy or tamoxifen.