ArticleClinical and experimental dermatology2022
Emollient prescribing formularies and guidelines in England, 2021: a cross-sectional study.
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.
- Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Children.Cureus · 2024Review
- Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in women of reproductive age: a systematic review of local formularies.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Childhood eczema: paths to optimisation of management.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
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 a mainstay of treatment for dry skin conditions. In the UK, prescribers are usually expected to follow local National Health Service (NHS) formularies. A previous study in 2018 showed that the recommended emollients across England and Wales varied widely. Evidence has since emerged that bath additives provide no additional clinical benefit in eczema.
aimTo compare emollient formularies and guidelines in England.
methodsClinical Commissioning Group (CCG) formularies and guidelines were identified in April-May 2021, compiled and then analysed descriptively.
resultsIn total, 105 CCGs, 72 emollient formularies and 47 emollient prescribing guidelines were identified. There were internal inconsistencies between formularies and their accompanying guidelines in 19% of cases. The majority (68%) of formularies/guidelines were organized using a ranking system. In total, 126 different leave-on emollients were named. Creams and ointments were universally available and were the most recommended first-line types. Cost was more likely than patient choice to be recommended as a criterion for selecting which emollient to prescribe. Aqueous cream was the leave-on emollient most commonly not recommended. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of formularies stated that bath additives should not be prescribed.
conclusionAll CCGs in England have an emollient formulary/guideline, but there is still great variability between them in their recommendations. Although the number of formularies/guidelines has reduced since 2017, there has been an increase in the total number of unique recommended leave-on emollients. Most CCGs are no longer recommending bath emollients for eczema.
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.