↓ Skip to main content

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
145 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Emollients and moisturisers for eczema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012119.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther J van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Robin Christensen, Adriana PM Lavrijsen, Bernd WM Arents

Abstract

Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective. To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema. We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials. Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed. Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 145 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 275 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 56 20%
Student > Master 42 15%
Student > Bachelor 40 14%
Researcher 32 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Other 80 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 39%
Unspecified 66 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 8%
Psychology 10 4%
Other 47 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 120. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2019.
All research outputs
#130,465
of 13,641,879 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#279
of 10,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,963
of 346,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,641,879 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.