Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27852708›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): feasibility study of a randomised controlled parallel group trial in children recruited from primary care.

Matthew J Ridd, Kirsty Garfield, Daisy M Gaunt, Sandra Hollinghurst, Niamh M Redmond, Kingsley Powell, Victoria Wilson, Richard H Guy, Nicola Ball, Lindsay Shaw and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. How parents and children evaluate emollients for childhood eczema: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew J RiddCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kirsty GarfieldBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Daisy M GauntBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Sandra HollinghurstCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0782-3117
Niamh M RedmondCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kingsley PowellCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Victoria WilsonCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard H GuyDepartment of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Nicola BallCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lindsay ShawDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Sarah PurdyCentre for Academic Primary Care, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chris MetcalfeBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

Department of Health CTF-01-12-06Department of Health PB-PG-0712-28056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of 'leave on' emollients for children with eczema.

designSingle-centre, pragmatic, 4-arm, observer-blinded, parallel, randomised feasibility trial.

settingGeneral practices in the UK.

participantsChildren with eczema aged 1 month to <5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-proportion of parents who reported use of the allocated study emollient every day for the duration of follow-up (12 weeks). Other feasibility outcomes-participant recruitment and retention, data collection and completeness and blinding of observers to allocation.

interventionsAveeno lotion, Diprobase cream, Doublebase gel, Hydromol ointment.

results197 children were recruited-107 by self-referral (mainly via practice mail-outs) and 90 by inconsultation (clinician consenting and randomising) pathways. Participants recruited inconsultation were younger, had more severe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores and were more likely to withdraw than self-referrals. Parents of 20 (10%) of all the randomised participants reported using the allocated emollient daily for 84 days. The use of other non-study emollients was common. Completeness of data collected by parent-held daily diaries and at monthly study visits was good. Daily diaries were liked (81%) but mainly completed on paper rather than via electronic ('app') form. Major costs drivers were general practitioner consultations and eczema-related prescriptions. Observer unblinding was infrequent, and occurred at the baseline or first follow-up visit through accidental disclosure.

conclusionsIt is feasible in a primary care setting to recruit and randomise young children with eczema to emollients, follow them up and collect relevant trial data, while keeping observers blinded to their allocation. However, reported use of emollients (study and others) has design implications for future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21828118/EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Indexed as

Child, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisEczemaEmollientsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInfantLinear ModelsMalePrimary Health CareSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomEmollientsPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID27852708
PMCPMC5129109
OpenAlexW2553128045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.