ArticleClinical and experimental dermatology2022
Emollient satisfaction questionnaire: validation study in children with eczema.
Article in Clinical and experimental dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Epicutaneous Sensitization and Food Allergy: Preventive Strategies Targeting Skin Barrier Repair-Facts and Challenges.Nutrients · 2023Review
- Moisturizer in Patients with Inflammatory Skin Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmollients are used as maintenance therapy for all severities of eczema but there is a lack of head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness and acceptability.
aimTo determine the validity of a self-report questionnaire designed to assess user satisfaction with a given emollient and to report the findings.
methodsData were analysed from the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment trial, which compared four emollient types (Aveeno
resultsData from 77.2% (152 of 197) of participants were analysed. One item was rejected because of a high rate (44.7%) of 'don't know' responses, leaving seven items with high completion rates (98.7%) and weak evidence of floor or ceiling effects. A positive association was observed between total score and overall emollient satisfaction (Spearman correlation 0.78; P < 0.001). Total scores were highest (mean ± SD 23.5 ± 3.9) in the lotion group and lowest (18.4 ± 4.6) in the ointment group.
conclusionThe emollient satisfaction questionnaire appears to have good validity. Further work is required to validate the questionnaire in other settings and to assess its reliability.
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.