Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 5;2022(8):CD010738. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010738.pub2

Grotewohl 1994.

Study characteristics
Methods Design: multicentre RCT
Country: Germany
Setting: not reported
Sample size calculation: not reported
Ethical approval: not reported
Informed consent: was obtained
Participants Total sample: 84 participants with ulcera crurum
Inclusion criteria: none specified
Exclusion criteria: none specified
Numbers randomised
  • Group 1 (hydrogel dressing): 39 participants with 41 ulcers

  • Group 2 (hydrocolloid dressing): 24 participants, 24 ulcers (1 participant with a double‐sided ulcer was treated with both products at once)


ABPI: not reported
Unit of analysis: ulcer
Baseline ulcer size cm² (mean) (before treatment)
  • Group 1 (hydrogel dressing): 10.1

  • Group 2 (hydrocolloid dressing): 6.3


Ulcer infection: not reported
Data collected: ulcer dimension by planimetry
Comments: the study started with 84 participants, but only 62 participants were followed for 28 days of the study. There was no justification for the dropouts.
The trial author reported that 3 participants from the hydrogel group had double‐sided ulcers; 1 of these participants was treated with hydrogel and hydrocolloid at once
Interventions Group 1: hydrogel dressing (Opragel, Lohmann)
Group 2: hydrocolloid dressing (proprietary name not reported, manufacturer not reported)
*All participants were subjected to compression therapy
Description of compression therapy: not reported
Length of treatment: 4 weeks
Follow‐up: 4 weeks
Outcomes Complete wound healing: reported that some ulcers were completely healed after 28 days and several participants after 14 days (no numbers reported)
Incidence of wound infection: not reported
Change in ulcer size: reported, planimetry used to measure the wound at day 14 and 28 of treatment
  • Group 1 (hydrogel dressing): reduction of 44.6% at day 28

  • Group 2 (hydrocolloid dressing): reduction of 33.3% at day 28


Time to ulcer healing: not reported
Recurrence of ulcer: not reported
Health‐related quality of life: not reported
Pain: not reported
Costs: not reported
Notes No details of the number of ulcers healed at end of trial were provided.
Exclusions post‐randomisation: 22 exclusions, no reason provided for withdrawal and no details provided regarding number of withdrawals per group.
The trial author reported no observed cases of irritation or allergic reactions with the use of dressings
No details explaining the imbalance in allocation between study groups
Group 1: "4 ulcers did not demonstrate signs of healing".
Group 2: "3 ulcers did not demonstrate signs of healing".
Funding: not described.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "The assignment was carried out to the principle of random selection".
Comment: method of generating the random sequence was not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: no mention of allocation concealment in study report#.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Comment: no mention of blinding in study report.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Comment: no mention of blinding in study report.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes High risk Comment: authors did not report withdrawals per groups (22/84 participants were excluded) and data were not fully reported. Trial authors only presented percentage of healing without present SD, standard error, CI or any other statistical analysis, precluding review authors to perform further analysis of data. Authors described that "In some cases the ulcers were completely healed after 28 days …" but did not provide number of healed ulcers per group.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Comment: all trial outcomes described in the methods section of the report were included in the results section. Unable to obtain RCT protocol (no response from email sent to trial author).
Other bias High risk Comment: study showed inconsistency of data based on the number of participants with multiple ulcers and also imbalance with baseline ulcer surface area.