Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Cureus · October 9, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
BackgroundRadiation-induced skin reactions (RISRs) are a frequent acute toxicity of radiotherapy that can cause pain, impair quality of life, and interrupt treatment.No topical agent is established for their prevention in Bangladesh, and the value of inexpensive 10% urea ointment is unknown. MethodologyThis prospective, quasi-experimental, open-label study was conducted in the Department of Radiotherapy, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Bangladesh, from December 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022.A total of 64 patients receiving external-beam radiotherapy were assigned in equal numbers by a predetermined odd-even sequence to twice-daily 10% urea ointment plus skin hygiene advice from the first fraction until 14 days after completion, or to the departmental 2022 practice of hygiene advice alone.RISRs and skin pain were assessed by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) criteria and a visual analog scale (VAS) weekly during treatment and at two and four weeks afterward.The primary outcome was RISR incidence; secondary outcomes were its onset, duration and severity, skin pain, analgesia use, and all-cause unplanned radiotherapy interruption.Exact tests were used, with exploratory adjustment by modified Poisson regression. ResultsEach arm comprised 32 patients.RISRs occurred in 15/32 (46.9%) of the urea arm and 24/32 (75.0%) of the hygiene advice arm (risk ratio (RR) = 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.95) and were first documented later with urea (log-rank p = 0.024).Severe (grade ≥3) reactions (18.8% versus 31.2%) and median duration (15.0 versus 21.5 days, p = 0.082) did not differ significantly.Analgesia was required by 9/32 (28.1%) and 19/32 (59.4%) (RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.25-0.88),and all-cause unplanned interruption, with unrecorded reasons, occurred in 4/32 (12.5%) and 22/32 (68.8%) (RR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.07-0.47);no patient discontinued radiotherapy, and weekly VAS scores never differed (all p ≥ 0.068).After adjustment, the associations with incidence (RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45-0.98)and interruption (RR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.11-0.80)persisted, but that with analgesia did not (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.28-1.17). ConclusionsIn this small non-randomized study, adding twice daily 10% urea ointment to skin hygiene advice was associated with fewer and later documented RISRs.The lower rate of all-cause interruption needs cautious interpretation because its reasons were not recorded, and lower analgesia use did not persist after adjustment.Because allocation was deterministic and the groups differed at baseline, these non-randomized estimates are not causal and do not establish superiority over other moisturizers.Urea is a low-cost candidate warranting confirmation in an adequately powered randomized multicenter trial.