Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2018
Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Eczema Care Online behavioural interventions to support self-care for children and young people: two independent, pragmatic, randomised controlled trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Evolution of reported patient and public involvement over time in randomised controlled trials in major medical journals and in their protocols: meta-epidemiological evaluation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- A systematic review of guidelines for the management of atopic dermatitis in children.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2024Review
- Bathing in Atopic Dermatitis in Pediatric Age: Why, How and When.Pediatric reports · 2024Review
- Atopic eczema in primary care: evidence update and implications for practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Exploring the Complexities of Atopic Dermatitis: Pathophysiological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches.Journal of biotechnology and biomedicine · 2024Article
- Early emollient bathing is associated with subsequent atopic dermatitis in an unselected birth cohort study.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2023Observational
- Article
- Managing atopic dermatitis in infants.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022Article
- General practitioners' explanation and advice on childhood eczema and factors influencing their treatment strategy: A qualitative study.Skin health and disease · 2022Article
- Emollient prescribing formularies and guidelines in England, 2021: a cross-sectional study.Clinical and experimental dermatology · 2022Article
- Atopic dermatitis and bathing.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- Do patient characteristics matter when calculating sample size for eczema clinical trials?Skin health and disease · 2021Article
- Patterns and trends in eczema management in UK primary care (2009-2018): A population-based cohort study.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2021Article
- RCGP Research Paper of the Year 2018: highlighting the challenge for primary care medical education research.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Understanding economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema.The British journal of dermatology · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children.
designPragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups.
setting96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England.
participants483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded.
interventionsParticipants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed.
results483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects.
conclusionsThis trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.