{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,30]],"date-time":"2026-04-30T12:15:38Z","timestamp":1777551338720,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":23,"publisher":"Mark Allen Group","issue":"6","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Wound Care"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2008,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Objective:<\/jats:title><jats:p> Radiotherapy-induced moist desquamation is a significant problem but there is a paucity of randomised data on which to base treatment decisions. The current prospective randomised trial compared gentian violet (GV) to a hydrogel dressing in this context. <\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Method:<\/jats:title><jats:p> Thirty patients undergoing radiotherapy to the head and neck region or breast who had developed moist desquamation in the radiotherapy field were randomised to treatment with 0.5% aqueous gentian violet (GV) (n=16) or a hydrogel dressing (n=14). The area of desquamation was regularly measured until healing or withdrawal from the study. <\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title><jats:p> The likelihood of healing with the hydrogel was greater than GV with a hazard ratio for healing of 7.95 (95% CI 2.20\u201328.68; p=0.002). The median time to healing for hydrogel was 12 days but had not been reached for GV by 30 days. Over the first 14 days the median \u2018area under curve\u2019 of moist desquamation for GV was 82.6 cm<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup> (range 31.8\u2013320.7cm<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>) and that for hydrogel 20.0 cm<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup> (range 3.8\u2013301.0cm<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>) (difference significant at p=0.003). Ten of 16 patients treated with GV withdrew from the study (due to stinging in five and failure to heal in five) compared with two of the 14 treated with hydrogel (difference significant at p=0.021). <\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title><jats:p> Hydrogel dressings are more likely to heal radiotherapy-induced moist desquamation and are better tolerated than GV. <\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Declaration of interest:<\/jats:title><jats:p> None. <\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.12968\/jowc.2008.17.6.29589","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,5,23]],"date-time":"2014-05-23T15:59:59Z","timestamp":1400860799000},"page":"268-275","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":37,"title":["RCT on gentian violet versus a hydrogel dressing for radiotherapy-induced moist skin desquamation"],"prefix":"10.12968","volume":"17","author":[{"given":"S.","family":"Gollins","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"North Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Bodelwyddan, UK"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"C.","family":"Gaffney","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Velindre NHS Trust, Whitchurch, Cardiff, UK"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"S.","family":"Slade","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Velindre NHS Trust, Whitchurch, Cardiff, UK"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"R.","family":"Swindell","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"5130","reference":[{"key":"p_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"randomised controlled trial. Radiat Oncol 2004; 73: 153-162.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.radonc.2004.07.032"},{"key":"p_3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0360-3016(03)01431-7"},{"key":"p_4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.COC.0000071418.12121.C2"},{"key":"p_5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2004.07.063"},{"key":"p_6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2003.11.031"},{"key":"p_8","first-page":"144","volume":"18","author":"Programmed","year":"1995","journal-title":"Cancer Nurs"},{"key":"p_9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1054\/ejon.2001.0145"},{"key":"p_10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0936-6555(05)80513-8"},{"key":"p_11","volume-title":"Carter, S., Glatstein, E., Livingston, R. (eds). Principles of Cancer Treatment","author":"Schwade J.","year":"1982"},{"key":"p_12","first-page":"44","volume":"9","author":"Hassey K.M.","year":"1982","journal-title":"Onc Nursing Forum"},{"key":"p_14","unstructured":"Colouring Matter in Food Regulations, 1973. FdAC\/ REP\/4. HMSO, 1987."},{"key":"p_16","volume":"80","author":"Newcombe R.G.","year":"1999","journal-title":"Brit J Cancer"},{"key":"p_18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/00002820-200511000-00005"},{"key":"p_22","unstructured":"Of the 14 patients in the hydrogel group, one patient (7%) formally withdrew on day 2 because of stinging and one patient withdrew on day 7 because they were unable to comply with their instructions. All but one of the remaining 12 patients healed within 4-16 days. The one patient who healed outside this range (28 days) was found to have a wound infection (on swabbing) and healed seven days after starting antibiotics. A Consort flowchart summarising the flow of participants through each stage of the study is shown in Fig 1."},{"key":"p_23","unstructured":"Amarked difference was observed between the hydrogel and GV groups in the likelihood to heal completely, with a greater probability of healing for hydrogel than GV. The hazard ratio for healing was 7.95 (95% confidence interval: 2.20-28.68, p=0.002). The median healing time for the hydrogel group was 12 days, compared with 30 days for GV. The difference between the two groups in the number of withdrawals was statistically significant (chi-square test with Yates continuity correction = 5.37 with 1 degree of freedom p=0.021)."},{"key":"p_25","unstructured":"Over the first seven days the total median area of moist desquamation for GV and hydrogel per day (the area under curve) was 35.9cm2(range 20.5-227.0) and 17.0cm2(range 3.8-175.0) respectively. This difference was not significant using the Mann-Whitney U test, p=0.091. Over the first 14 days this increased to 82.6cm2(range 31.8-320.7) for GV and 20cm2(range 3.8-301.0) for the hydrogel. This difference was significant using the Mann-Whitney U test, p=0.003."},{"key":"p_29","unstructured":"desquamative radiation skin reaction. The Dressing Times (online) 1992;5: Available from: www.smtl. co.uk\/WMPRC\/"},{"key":"p_30","unstructured":"DressingsTimes\/vol5.1.txt (accessed 13 November 2007)"},{"key":"p_32","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"desquamation wound healing. Cancer Nursing 2000; 23: 220-229.","DOI":"10.1097\/00002820-200006000-00010"},{"key":"p_34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijrobp.2006.12.049"},{"key":"p_36","first-page":"75","volume":"2","author":"Intervention","year":"2001","journal-title":"J Radiother Pract"},{"key":"p_38","unstructured":"Best Practice Statement-Skincare of Patients Receiving Radiotherapy, April 2004. \/\/www."},{"key":"p_40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2005.04.9148"}],"container-title":["Journal of Wound Care"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.magonlinelibrary.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.12968\/jowc.2008.17.6.29589","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,5,24]],"date-time":"2022-05-24T02:37:13Z","timestamp":1653359833000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.magonlinelibrary.com\/doi\/10.12968\/jowc.2008.17.6.29589"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2008,6]]},"references-count":23,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2008,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.12968\/jowc.2008.17.6.29589"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12968\/jowc.2008.17.6.29589","relation":{},"ISSN":["0969-0700","2052-2916"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0969-0700","type":"print"},{"value":"2052-2916","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2008,6]]}}}