Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of results

From: Prevention and treatment of acute radiation-induced skin reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparison of interventions Included studies, sample size and treatment areas Outcome type Outcome Results/effect size
1. Oral systemic medications
1.1 Oral Wobe-Mugos versus no medication Dale, 2001; Gujral, 2001 N = 219 Prevention Primary  
Development of RISR (Yes/No) (Dale, 2001 & Gujral, 2001) Meta-analysis:
OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38, p < 0.0005
(Favouring Oral Wobe-Mugos)
Treatment Secondary  
Maximum Levels of RISR (RTOG/EORTC criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) (Dale, 2001 & Gujral, 2001) Meta-analysis:
MD -0.92, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.48, p < 0.0001
(Favouring Oral Wobe-Mugos)
1.2 Oral Pentoxifylline versus no medication Aygenc, 2004 Prevention Primary  
N = 78 Development of RISR (Yes/No) OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.95, p = 0.28
Treatment Secondary:  
Adverse Effects (Yes/No) OR 17.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 313.28, p = 0.05
1.3 Oral Antioxidant versus placebo Bairati, 2005 Treatment Secondary: MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.03, p = 0.17
N = 545 RISR at the end of radiation treatment (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4)
  RISR at four weeks after the end of radiation treatment (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.08, p = 1.00
  Global quality of life at the end of radiation treatment (QoLC30, with a possible range of 0–100) MD 0.00, 95% CI -3.95 to 3.95, p = 1.00
  Global quality of life at four weeks after the end of radiation treatment (QoLC30, with a possible range of 0–100) MD -2.00, 95% CI -5.29 to 1.29, p = 0.23
  Skin-related quality of life at the end of radiation treatment (HNC-QoL, with a possible range of 0–7 with 7 representing better quality of life) MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.36. p = 0.46
  Skin-related quality of life at weeks after the end of radiation treatment (HNC-QoL, with a possible range of 0–7 with 7 representing better quality of life) MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12, p = 1.00
1.4 Oral sucralfate suspension versus placebo Lievens, 1998 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 83 Maximum levels of RISR (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–6) MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.74, p = 0.47
  Adverse effect (measured as mean peak nausea, scoring system developed by authors, 0 = none, 4 = vomiting resistant to medication) MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.17, p = 0.27
1.5 Oral zinc supplementation versus placebo Lin, 2006 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 97 RISR at the completion of radiation treatment (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -0.50, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.42, p < 0.00001
(Favouring oral zinc supplementation)
2. Skincare practices (washing practices and deodorant use)
2.1 Washing with soap versus no washing Campbell, 1992; Roy, 2001 Prevention Primary:  
Development of RISR (Yes/No) (Roy, 2001) OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05, p = 0.49
N = 167
Treatment Secondary:  
Itch at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) (Campbell, 1992) Week 6- MD -0.43, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.11, p = 0.12,Week 8- MD-0.40, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.01, p = 0.06 (Favouring washing with soap)
  Erythema at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) (Campbell, 1992) Week 6- MD-0.40 95% CI -0.77 to -0.03, p = 0.03, Week 8-MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10, p = 0.18
  Desquamation at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) (Campbell, 1992) Week 6- MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.11, p = 0.01, Week 8- MD -0.82, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.48, p < 0.00001 (Favouring washing with soap)
2.2 Washing with water versus no washing Campbell, 1992 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 58 Itch at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) Week 6- MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.29, p = 0.35, Week 8- MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.09, p = 0.01 (Favouring washing with water)
  Erythema at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) Week 6- MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.01, p = 0.06, Week 8- MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16, p = 0.002 (Favouring washing with water)
  Desquamation at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) Week 6- MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.24, p = 0.001, Week 8- MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.28, p = 0.0004 (Favouring washing with water)
2.3 Washing with water versus washing with soap Campbell, 1992 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 64 Itch at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) Week 6- MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.67, p = 0.54, Week 8- MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.27, p = 0.72
  Erythema at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) Week 6- MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.38, p = 0.71, Week 8- MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16, p = 0.001 (Favouring washing with water)
  Desquamation at the end of treatment (week six) and the two-week follow-up (week eight) (EORTC/RTOG criteria, with a possible score of 0–3) Week 6- MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.27, p = 0.54, Week 8- MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.56, p = 0.27
2.4 Deodorant versus no deodorant Bennett, 2009; Gee, 2000; Theberge, 2009; Watson, 2012 Prevention Primary:  
Development of RISR (Yes/No) (Bennett, 2009 & Gee, 2000) Meta-analysis:
OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.37, p = 0.42
  Development of RISR in patients with axilla treated (Yes/No) (Bennett, 2009) OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.60, p = 0.02
N = 509 Treatment Secondary:  
RISR at the end of radiation treatment and at the two-week follow-up (CTCAE criteria version 3, with a possible range of 0–3) (Watson, 2012) End of treatment- MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.19, p = 0.91, Two-week follow-up- MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.23, p = 0.93
  Maximum RISR rated by researcher (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–3) (Bennett, 2009) MD = -0.74, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.26, p = 0.003
(Favouring deodorant)
  Moderate-to-severe pain at the end of radiation treatment and at the two-week follow-up (Yes/No) (Theberge, 2009) End of treatment- OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.09, p = 0.61, Two-week follow-up- OR 2.16, 9% CI 0.65 to 7.14, p = 0.21
  Pruritus at the end of radiation treatment and at the two-week follow-up (Yes/No) (Theberge, 2009) End of treatment- OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.78, p = 0.05, Two-week follow-up- OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.77, p = 0.42
  Sweating at the end of radiation treatment and at the two-week follow-up (Yes/No) (Theberge, 2009) End of treatment- OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.93, p = 0.04, Two-week follow up- OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.99, p = 0.51
3. Steroidal topical ointment/cream
3.1 Topical 0.1% mometasone furoate cream versus placebo Miller, 2011 Prevention Primary:  
N = 166 Development of RISR (Yes/ No) OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.31, p = 0.20
Treatment Secondary:  
RISR at the two-week follow-up after the completion of radiation treatment (CTCAE criteria version 3.0, with a possible range of 0–3) MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.02, p = 0.06
  Maximum RISR level (CTCAE criteria version 3.0, with a possible range of 0–3) MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.15, p = 0.43
3.2 Topical betamethasone cream versus placebo Omidvari, 2007 Prevention Primary:  
N = 36 Development of RISR (Yes/No) There was an equal proportion of people developing a RISR (summary statistics not estimated)
Treatment Secondary:  
RISR at the end of treatment (week five) and the two-week follow-up (week seven) (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) End of treatment- MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.08, p = 0.28, two-week follow-up- MD -0.55, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.39, p < 0.00001 (Favouring topical betamethasone cream)
  Maximum level of RISR (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -1.62, 95% CI -2.03 to -1.21, p < 0.00001 (Favouring topical betamethasone cream)
3.3 Topical betamethasone versus no topical treatment Omidvari, 2007 Prevention Primary:  
N = 36 Development of RISR (Yes/ No) There was an equal proportion of people developing a RISR (summary statistics not estimated)
Treatment Secondary:  
RISR at the end of treatment (week five) and two weeks after treatment (week seven) (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) End of treatment- MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.15, p = 0.002, two-week follow-up- MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07, p = 0.01
(Favouring topical betamethasone cream)
  Maximum level of RISR (RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.21, p = 0.27
3.4 Topical corticosteroid versus another topical corticosteroid Glees, 1979 Prevention Primary:  
N = 53 Development of RISR (Yes/ No) OR 3.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 86.03, p = 0.46
3.5 Topical corticosteroid plus antibiotics versus corticosteroid alone Halnan, 1962 Prevention Primary:  
N = 20 Development of RISR (Yes/ No) There was an equal proportion of people developing a RISR (summary statistics not estimated)
3.6 Topical corticosteroid plus antibiotics versus no treatment Halnan, 1962 Prevention Primary:  
N = 20 Development of RISR (Yes/ No) OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84, p = 0.04
(Favouring topical corticosteroid plus antibiotics)
3.7 Topical corticosteroid versus dexpanthenol Schmuth, 2002 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 21 Levels of RISR at the end of radiation treatment (week six) (The clinical symptom score with a possible range of 0–3) MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.37, p = 0.68
  Levels of RISR at the two-week follow-up after the end of radiation treatment (week eight) (The clinical symptom score with a possible range of 0–3) MD -1.40, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.83, p < 0.00001
(Favouring topical corticosteroid)
4. Dressings
4.1 Hydrogel dressing versus Gentian violet dressing Gollins, 2008 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 20 Time to heal (days) HR 7.95, 95% CI 2.20-28.68, p = 0.002
(Favouring hydrogel dressing)
  Adverse events (measured as stinging, yes or no) OR 3.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 24.52, p = 0.15
4.2 Gentian violet dressing versus non-adherent dressing Mak, 2005 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 39 Time to heal (days) HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52-1.03, p = 0.07
  Pain at week two after the application of dressing (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5) MD -0.29, 95% CI = -0.66 to 0.08, p = 0.13
4.3 Silver nylon dressing versus standard care Niazi, 2012   RISR severity at the end of radiation treatment (CTCAE criteria version 4, with a possible range of 0–4) MD = -0.86, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.13, p = 0.02
N = 40 (Favouring silver nylon dressing)
4.4 MVP dressings versus Lanolin dressing Shell, 1986 Shell 1986 compared moisture vapour permeable (MVP dressing) compared with lanolin dressings. We were unable to extract data from the study. Insufficient information was provided in relation to the time to healing outcome as well as the RISR scores (no SD provided). The trial authors reported “the trend to faster healing in the MVP group was not statistically significant”.
N = 16
4.5 Mepilex lite dressing versus aqueous cream Paterson, 2012 Paterson 2012 compared Mepilex lite dressing with aqueous cream alone. We were unable to extract data from the study. However, the trial authors reported that ”Mepilex Lite dressings did not significantly reduce the incidence of moist desquamation, but did reduce the overall severity of skin reactions by 41% (p < 0.001), and the average moist desquamation score by 49% (p = 0.043).“ The trial authors were contacted for further information. However, no replies were received at the time of publishing this review.
N = 74
5. Non-steroidal ointment/cream
5.1 Hyaluronic acid versus placebo cream Kirova, 2011; Leonardi, 2008; Liguori, 1997; Primavera, 2006 Prevention Primary:  
Development of RISR (Yes/No) (Leonardi, 2008) OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.01 to 10.10, p = 0.57
Treatment Secondary:  
Severe pain (>2) at week one, week two and week three of radiation treatment (as defined as >2 on a visual analogue scale, Yes/No) (Kirova 2011) Week One- OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.32, p = 0.49, Week Two- OR 1.79, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.27, p = 0.06, Week Three- OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59, p = 0.45
N = 384
  Quality of life at week four of radiation treatment (EORTC CLC Q30) (Kirova 2011) MD -0.10, 95% CI -6.75 to 6.55, p = 0.98
  RISR severity at the end of radiation treatment (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–6) (Liguori 1997) MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.42, p < 0.00001
(Favouring hyaluronic acid)
  RISR severity at four weeks after radiation treatment completion (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–6) (Liguori 1997) MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.02, p = 0.04
(Favouring hyaluronic acid)
  Maximum RISR over the duration of radiation treatment (CTCAE, with a possible range of 0–4) (Leonardi, 2008) MD-0.95, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.67, p < 0.00001
(Favouring hyaluronic acid)
  Pain, itching and burning at four weeks of radiation treatment (0–10 cm visual analogue scale, with a possible range of 0–10) (Leonardi, 2008) Pain- MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.72 to 0.72, p = 0.42, Itching- MD -0.18, 95% CI -1.39 to 1.03, p = 0.77, Burning- MD -0.91, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.19, p = 0.10
  Adverse effects (yes/no) (Leonardi, 2008) OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, p = 0.13
5.2 Aloe vera versus aqueous cream Heggie, 2002 Heggie 2002 reported that “aqueous cream was significantly better than aloe vera in reducing dry desquamation and pain related to treatment”. However, this study did not contain data or summary statistics concerning the outcomes as defined by this review.
N = 225
5.3 Aloe vera gel and soap versus soap alone Olsen, 2001 Olsen 2001reported that “when the cumulative of radiation dose was high (>2700 cGy), the median time was give weeks prior to any skin changes in the aloe/soap arm versus three weeks in the soap only arm. When cumulative dose increases over time, there seems to be a protective effect of adding aloe to the soap regimen.” However, this study did not contain data or summary statistics concerning the outcomes as defined by this review.
N = 73
5.4 Aloe vera gel versus placebo Williams, 1996 Williams 1996 reported that “skin dermatitis scores were virtually identical on both treatment arms, and that, aloe vera gel does not protect against radiation treatment-induced dermatitis”. However, this study did not contain data or summary statistics concerning the outcomes as defined by this review.
N = 194
5.5 Aloe vera gel versus an Anionic Phospholipid-Based (APP) cream Merchant, 2007 Merchant 2007 (n = 194) reported that statistically significant differences were found favouring the APP cream over the aloe vera gel in a number of outcomes including skin comfort, RISR skin severity. However, this study did not contain data or summary statistics concerning the outcomes as defined by this review.
N = 194
5.6 Trolamine versus usual care as per institutional preference Elliott, 2006; Fisher, 2000 Prevention Primary:  
Development of RISR (yes/no) (Elliot 2006) OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.11, p = 0.28
N = 462 Treatment Secondary:  
Maximum levels of RISR (NCI CTC criteria and RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) (Eilott, 2006 & Fisher,2000) Meta-analysis:
MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13, p = 0.97
5.7 Trolamine versus Placebo Gosselin, 2010   Patient satisfaction (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5, 5-best satisfaction) MD 1.12, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.68, p < 0.00001 (Favouring trolamine)
N = 102
  Ease of use (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5, 5-highest level of ease) MD 0.44, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.87, p = 0.04
(Favouring trolamine)
5.8 Trolamine versus Calendula Pommier, 2004 Treatment Secondary: OR 7.68, 95% CI 3.07 to 19.17, p < 0.0001
N = 254 Ease of use (measured as difficult to use- yes or no) (Favouring trolamine)
  Allergic reaction (yes/no) OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05, p = 0.14
5.9 Trolamine versus ETA Gel (99% Avene Thermal Spring Water) Ribet, 2008 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 54 RISR severity at the end of radiation treatment (NCI CTC criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.30, p = 0.53
5.10 Trolamine versus topical Qingdiyou medication Zhang, 2011 Zhang 2011 compared trolamine and topical qingdiyou medication. We could not extract data from this study. The trial authors reported that patients who received qingdiyou medication had significantly less severe RISR (p < 0.05). The trial authors did not provide a time point as to when the assessments were undertaken. We attempted contacted authors for further information. However, no further information was available.
N = 72
5.11 Sorbolene versus wheatgrass extract cream Wheat, 2006; Wheat, 2007 Wheat 2006 (n = 30) and Wheat 2007 (n = 20) compared Sorbolene and wheatgrass extract cream. We could not extract data from these two studies. The trial authors did not provide SE, SD or 95% CI for the mean scores reported. The trial authors were contacted for further information. However, no replies were received at the time of publishing this review. Both studies reported that there were no statistically significant differences between the two arms with respect to the peak RISR severity or time to peak RISR rating. The trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in quality of life of patients in the wheatgrass group at week five and week six of radiation treatment.
N = 50
5.12 Sucralfate mixed with Sobolene (10% w/w (50 g of sucralfate crushed in 500 g of sorbolene) versus Sorbolene cream Delaney, 1997 The trial authors of Delaney 1997 reported that mean time to healing for the sucralfate and control groups, respectively were 14.8 days (coefficient of variation (c.v. = 70%) and 14.2 days (c.v. = 75%). The ratio of mean times to healing was 1.043 and was not statistically different from 1. (p = 0.86, 95% CI 0.65, 1.67). Estimates of the SD could not be calculated as it was unsure whether the c.v. data presented by the authors was based on the log transformed time-to-heal data or the untransformed data. The trial authors reported that “there was no statistically significant difference was found between the two arms in either from randomisation to healing or improvement in pain score”. We could not extract data from this study. The trial authors were contacted for further information. However, no replies were received at the time of publishing this review.
N = 39
5.13 Sucralfate cream versus placebo cream Maiche, 1994 Maiche 1994 compared sucralfate cream and placebo cream. The trial authors reported that “grade 1 and grade 2 reactions appeared significantly later on the areas treated with sucralfate cream. Grade 2 reactions were observed highly significantly more often at four weeks (p = 0.01) and at five weeks (p < 0.05) in favour of sucralfate. No allergic reactions were observed in either group. No other data were available after attempts to contact trial authors for more information.
N = 44
5.14 Sucralfate cream versus aqueous cream Wells, 2004 Wells 2004 compared Sorbolene and aqueous cream. We could not extract data from this study. The trial authors did not provide SE, SD or 95% CI for the mean scores reported. However, the authors reported that no statistically significant differences were found in the severity of skin reactions suffered by patients in either of the treatment arms.
N = 357
5.15 Non-steroidal restitutio restructuring cream formula A and non-steroidal restitutio restructuring cream formula B Garibaldi, 2009 Prevention Primary:  
N = 64 Development of RISR (yes/no) OR 0.64 95% CI 0.22 to 1.88, p = 0.41
5.16 WO1932 oil in water emulsion versus usual care/untreated Jenson, 2011 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 66 RISR severity at the end of radiation treatment (Oncology Nursing Society Skin Reaction Scoring System, with a possible range of 0–3) MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.01, p = 0.07
5.17 Aquaphor ointment versus placebo Gosselin, 2010 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 106 Patient satisfaction (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5, 5-best satisfaction) MD 0.59, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.15, p = 0.04
(Favouring aquaphor ointment)
  Ease of use (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5, 5-best level of ease) MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.41, p = 0.70
5.18 RadiaCare gel versus placebo Gosselin, 2010 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 106 Patient satisfaction (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5, 5-best satisfaction) MD 0.91, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.46, p = 0.001
(Favouring radiacare gel)
  Ease of use (Scoring system developed by authors, with a possible range of 0–5, 5-best level of ease) MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.62, p = 0.49
5.19 Topical Lian Bai liquid versus no Lian Bai liquid Ma, 2007 Prevention Development of RISR (yes or no) OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.12, p < 0.00001
N = 126 (Favouring topical lian bai liquid)
5.20 Formulation A topical cream (capprais spinosa, opuntia coccinellifera and olive leaf extract) versus no treatment Rizza, 2010 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 44 Maximum RISR over eight weeks (modified RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -1.17, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.75, p < 0.00001
(Favouring formulation A topical cream)
5.21 Formulation B topical cream (non-steroidal water based emulsion) versus no Treatment Rizza, 2010 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 42 Maximum RISR over eight weeks (modified RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -0.79, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.37, p < 0.00001
(Favouring formulation B topical cream)
5.22 Formulation A topical cream (capprais spinosa, opuntia coccinellifera and olive leaf extract) versus formulation B topical cream (non-steroidal water based emulsion) Rizza, 2010 Treatment Secondary:  
N = 50 Maximum RISR over eight weeks (modified RTOG criteria, with a possible range of 0–4) MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.07, p = 0.02
(Favouring formulation A topical cream)
6. Other interventions
6.1 LED versus no LED treatment Fife, 2010 Prevention Primary:  
N = 33 Development of RISR OR 3.83, 95% CI 0.14 to 101.07, p = 0.42
  Treatment Secondary:  
    Levels of RISR at week five (CTCAE criteria version 4, with a possible range of 0–4) MD 0.00 95% CI -0.43 to 0.43, p = 1.00
  1. Note: CI, Confidence Interval; CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; HR, Hazard Ratio; LED, Light Emitting Diode photo-modulation; MD, Mean Difference; OR, Odds Ratio; RISR, Radiation Induced Skin Reactions; RTOG, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; SD, Standard Deviation; SE, Standard Error.
\