Skin protection education vs no intervention or minimal intervention: The proportion of participants developing any signs and symptoms of OIHD (incident cases) measured by clinical scores (IGA) or hand dermatitis scores (e.g. HECSI, Manuscore), or both, as rated by the investigator (physician/nurse) or the participa...
It is very uncertain whether skin protection education changes the proportion of participants developing any signs and symptoms of… compared with no or minimal intervention (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Skin protection education vs no or minimal intervention The proportion of participants developing any signs and symptoms of OIHD (incident cases) measured by clinical scores (IGA) or hand dermatitis scores (e.g. HECSI, Manuscore), or both, as rated by the investigator (physician/nurse) or the participa... · workers at risk of occupational irritant hand dermatitis It is very uncertain whether skin protection education changes the proportion of participants developing any signs and symptoms of… compared with no or minimal intervention (very low certainty). Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.76 [0.54, 1.08] | 3 studies · 13551 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.