Cochrane · systematic review · CD012119
Emollients and moisturisers for eczema
van Zuuren, EJ, Fedorowicz, Z, Christensen, R, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
SkinAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
63
current version
GRADE rated
45
No studies
18
Included studies
NR
No studies 18 · 28.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 3.2%Low 26 · 41.3%Moderate 14 · 22.2%High 3 · 4.8%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Moisturisers versus no treatment (no moisturiser)
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity according to participants ‐ not measured Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant satisfaction ‐ not measured Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | 15.34 [0.9, 261.64] | 1 study · 173 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the investigators Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 276 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | RR 0.4 [0.23, 0.7] | 2 studies · 87 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Amount of corticosteroids used Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 222 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life Moisturisers vs no treatment (no moisturiser) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 177 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Atopiclair versus vehicle
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity according to participants (number of participants who considered their skin to have improved) Atopiclair vs vehicle | RR 4.51 [2.19, 9.29] | 3 studies · 390 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Participant satisfaction Atopiclair vs vehicle | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 248 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Atopiclair vs vehicle | RR 1.03 [0.79, 1.33] | 4 studies · 430 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Change from baseline in disease severity according to the investigators Atopiclair vs vehicle | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 426 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Atopiclair vs vehicle | RR 0.18 [0.11, 0.31] | 3 studies · 397 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Change in use of topical active treatment ‐ not measured Atopiclair vs vehicle | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life ‐ not measured Atopiclair vs vehicle | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Urea‐containing moisturisers versus vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity according to the participants (number of participants who considered their skin to have improved) Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 1.28 [1.06, 1.53] | 1 study · 129 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Participant satisfaction Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 38 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 1.65 [1.16, 2.34] | 1 study · 129 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Change from baseline in disease severity according to the investigators (number of participants who improved according to the investigators) Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 1.4 [1.14, 1.71] | 1 study · 129 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 0.47 [0.24, 0.92] | 1 study · 44 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Change in use of topical active treatment ‐ not measured Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life ‐ not measured Urea‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers versus vehicle or placebo
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the participants(number of participants who considered their dry skin to have improved) Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | RR 1.22 [1.01, 1.48] | 1 study · 134 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Participant satisfaction ‐ not measured Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | RR 0.9 [0.68, 1.19] | 2 studies · 385 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the investigators Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 249 participants | High |
Number of participants who experienced a flare ‐ not measured Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change in use of topical active treatment ‐ not measured Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life ‐ not measured Glycerin/glycerol‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Oat‐containing moisturisers versus vehicle or no moisturiser
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the participants (number of participants who considered their skin to have improved) Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | RR 1.11 [0.84, 1.46] | 1 study · 50 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Participant satisfaction Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | RR 1.06 [0.74, 1.52] | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | RR 15.34 [0.9, 261.64] | 1 study · 173 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the investigators Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 272 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | RR 0.31 [0.12, 0.77] | 1 study · 43 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Total amount of topical corticosteroids used Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 222 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life Oat‐containing moisturisers vs vehicle or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 226 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
All moisturisers compared to vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser for eczema
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the participants (number of participants who considered their skin to have improved) All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 2.46 [1.16, 5.23] | 5 studies · 572 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Participant satisfaction All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 1.35 [0.77, 2.36] | 3 studies · 298 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 1.03 [0.82, 1.3] | 10 studies · 1275 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the investigators All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 1281 participants | High |
Number of participants who experienced a flare All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | RR 0.33 [0.17, 0.62] | 6 studies · 607 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Total amount of topical corticosteroids used All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 222 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life All moisturisers vs vehicle, placebo or no moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 300 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser versus hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream for eczema
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity according to participants ‐ not measured Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants who rated treatment satisfaction as good to excellent Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 18 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Change from baseline in disease severityas assessed by the investigators Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 96 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Change in use of active topical treatment ‐ not measured Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change from baseline in quality of life ‐ not measured Licochalcone‐containing moisturiser vs hydrocortisone acetate 1% cream | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser compared to fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the participants (number of participants reporting good to excellent result) Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | RR 0.45 [0.34, 0.59] | 1 study · 348 participants | High |
Participant satisfaction ‐ not measured Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | RR 0.51 [0.22, 1.14] | 4 studies · 718 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Change from baseline in disease severityas assessed by the investigators Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 75 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | RR 2.17 [1.51, 3.11] | 4 studies · 718 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Change in use of topical active treatment ‐ not measured Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change from baseline in quality of life ‐ not measured Vehicle treatment + daily moisturiser vs fluticasone propionate twice weekly + daily moisturiser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser compared to topical active treatment alone
Population: people with eczema
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change from baseline in disease severity according to participants ‐ not measured Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant satisfaction Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 201 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Number of participants reporting an adverse event Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | RR 0.39 [0.13, 1.19] | 1 study · 125 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Change from baseline in disease severity as assessed by the investigators Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 192 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Number of participants who experienced a flare Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | RR 0.43 [0.2, 0.93] | 1 study · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Change in amount of use topical active treatment ‐ not measured Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Change from baseline in health‐related quality of life Topical active treatment in combination with moisturiser vs topical active treatment alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 67 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |