OBJECTIVE： To evaluate the effectiveness of trolamine for preventing and treating radiation dermatitis （RD） and evidence quality， and to provide reference for clinical use. METHODS： Retrieved from PubMed， Cochrane library， Embase， CNKI， Wanfang and VIP database， randomized controlled trials （RCTs） about trolamine （trial group） versus usual care （control group） for preventing and treating RD were collected. After data extraction， Cochrane bias risk assessment tool 5.0.2 was used to assess the bias risk， and Rev Man 5.3 statistical software was used to perform the Meta-analysis. GRADE evidence quality grading system was used to evaluate the evidence quality of outcome indexes. RESULTS： Seven RCTs were included， involving 782 patients. Results of Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical significance in total incidence of RD [OR＝0.50， 95％CI （0.23， 1.11）， P＝0.09]， and the incidence of grade Ⅰ RD [OR＝1.32， 95％CI（0.96，1.81）， P＝0.09]， grade Ⅱ RD [OR＝1.07， 95％CI（0.80，1.42）， P＝0.66]， grade Ⅲ RD [OR＝0.69， 95％CI（0.45，1.04）， P＝0.07] or grade Ⅳ RD [OR＝0.43， 95％CI（0.17，1.05）， P＝0.07] between 2 groups. Results of Grade evidence quality evaluation showed that total incidence of RD， and the incidence of grade Ⅱ RD and grade Ⅳ RD were recommended by moderate-level evidence in 2 groups， while the incidence of grade Ⅰ and grade Ⅲ RD were recommended by low-level evidence. CONCLUSIONS： Trolamine is not effective in preventing and treating RD， and can not reduce the incidence of RD.