ArticleBMJ open2018
Emollient prescribing formularies in England and Wales: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Trial
- Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in women of reproductive age: a systematic review of local formularies.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Emollient prescribing formularies and guidelines in England, 2021: a cross-sectional study.Clinical and experimental dermatology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and compare emollient formularies across all clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and local health boards (LHBs) in England and Wales.
designFormularies were retrieved via CCG/LHB websites or Google search (October 2016-February 2017). Data on structure and content were extracted, and descriptive analyses were undertaken.
setting209 English CCGs and 7 Welsh LHBs.
main outcome measuresNumber and structure of formularies; number, type and name of emollients and bath additive recommendedandnot recommended; and any rationale given.
results102formularies were identified, which named 109 emollients and 24 bath additives. Most were structured in an 'order of preference' (63%) and/or formulation (51%) format. Creams and ointments were the most commonly recommended types of emollients, and three ointments were the most commonly recommended specific emollients (71%-79% of formularies). However, there was poor consensus over which emollient should be used first line and 4 out of 10 of the most recommended lotions and creams contained antimicrobials or urea. Patient preference (60%) and/or cost (58%) were the most common reasons given for the recommendations. Of the 82% of formularies that recommend the use of bath additives, 75% did not give any reasons for their recommendation.
conclusionsEmollient formularies in England and Wales vary widely in their structure, recommendations and rationale. The reasons for such inconsistencies are unclear, risk confusion and make for inequitable regional variation. There is poor justification for multiple different, conflicting formularies.
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.