Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28399154›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2017

Silk garments plus standard care compared with standard care for treating eczema in children: A randomised, controlled, observer-blind, pragmatic trial (CLOTHES Trial).

Kim S Thomas, Lucy E Bradshaw, Tracey H Sach, Jonathan M Batchelor, Sandra Lawton, Eleanor F Harrison, Rachel H Haines, Amina Ahmed, Hywel C Williams, Taraneh Dean and 12 more

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Letter to The Editor on 'Evaluation of antimicrobial textiles for atopic dermatitis'.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

22 authors.

Kim S ThomasCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Lucy E BradshawNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8382-6040
Tracey H SachHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8098-9220
Jonathan M BatchelorCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7728-2021
Sandra LawtonNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Eleanor F HarrisonNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0652-3980
Rachel H HainesNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7924-0602
Amina AhmedPatient and Public Involvement Representative, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Hywel C WilliamsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5646-3093
Taraneh DeanFaculty of Science, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Nigel P BurrowsCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ian PollockRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Barnet Hospital, Barnet, United Kingdom.
Joanne LlewellynNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0265-6025
Clare CrangCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8582-2438
Jane D GrundyIsle of Wight NHS Trust, St. Mary's Hospital, Newport, United Kingdom.
Juliet GuinessRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Barnet Hospital, Barnet, United Kingdom.
Andrew GribbinPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1183-4057
Eleanor J MitchellNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-4533
Fiona CowdellFaculty of Health Education and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9355-8059
Sara J BrownSkin Research Group, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3232-5251
Alan A MontgomeryNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0450-1606
UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network’s CLOTHES Trial Team

Funding

Department of Health 11/65/01Department of Health CDF-2014-07-006Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of clothing in the management of eczema (also called atopic dermatitis or atopic eczema) is poorly understood. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments (in addition to standard care) for the management of eczema in children with moderate to severe disease. METHODS AND

findingsThis was a parallel-group, randomised, controlled, observer-blind trial. Children aged 1 to 15 y with moderate to severe eczema were recruited from secondary care and the community at five UK medical centres. Participants were allocated using online randomisation (1:1) to standard care or to standard care plus silk garments, stratified by age and recruiting centre. Silk garments were worn for 6 mo. Primary outcome (eczema severity) was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 mo, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation, using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), which was log-transformed for analysis (intention-to-treat analysis). A safety outcome was number of skin infections. Three hundred children were randomised (26 November 2013 to 5 May 2015): 42% girls, 79% white, mean age 5 y. Primary analysis included 282/300 (94%) children (n = 141 in each group). The garments were worn more often at night than in the day (median of 81% of nights [25th to 75th centile 57% to 96%] and 34% of days [25th to 75th centile 10% to 76%]). Geometric mean EASI scores at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 mo were, respectively, 9.2, 6.4, 5.8, and 5.4 for silk clothing and 8.4, 6.6, 6.0, and 5.4 for standard care. There was no evidence of any difference between the groups in EASI score averaged over all follow-up visits adjusted for baseline EASI score, age, and centre: adjusted ratio of geometric means 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07, (p = 0.43). This confidence interval is equivalent to a difference of -1.5 to 0.5 in the original EASI units, which is not clinically important. Skin infections occurred in 36/142 (25%) and 39/141 (28%) of children in the silk clothing and standard care groups, respectively. Even if the small observed treatment effect was genuine, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £56,811 in the base case analysis from a National Health Service perspective, suggesting that silk garments are unlikely to be cost-effective using currently accepted thresholds. The main limitation of the study is that use of an objective primary outcome, whilst minimising detection bias, may have underestimated treatment effects.

conclusionsSilk clothing is unlikely to provide additional benefit over standard care in children with moderate to severe eczema.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365.

Indexed as

ClothingSilkStandard of CareAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolEczemaFemaleHumansInfantMaleSeverity of Illness IndexSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeSilk

Identifiers

PMID28399154
PMCPMC5388469

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.