A systematic review of Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) in atopic dermatitis (AD) trials: Many options, no standards.

BACKGROUND: Investigators often use global assessments to provide a snapshot of overall disease severity in dermatologic clinical trials. Although easy to perform, the frequency of use and standardization of global assessments in studies of atopic dermatitis (AD) is unclear. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the frequency, definitions, and methods of analysis of Investigator Global Assessment in randomized controlled trials of AD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using all published randomized controlled trials of AD treatments in the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database (2000-2014). We determined the frequency of global scales application and defining features. RESULTS: Among 317 trials identified, 101 trials (32%) used an investigator-performed global assessment as an outcome measure. There was large variability in global assessments between studies in nomenclature, scale size, definitions, outcome description, and analysis. Both static and dynamic scales were identified that ranged from 4- to 7-point scales. North American studies used global assessments more commonly than studies from other countries. LIMITATIONS: The search was restricted to the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database. CONCLUSION: Global assessments are used frequently in studies of AD, but their complete lack of standardized definitions and implementation preclude any meaningful comparisons between studies, which in turn impedes data synthesis to inform clinical decision-making. Standardization is urgently required.

Eczema Trials: Quality of Life Instruments Used and Their Relation to Patient-reported Outcomes. A Systematic Review.

It is unclear which quality of life instruments have thus far been used in eczema trials. Therefore, we aimed to identify these instruments. We searched the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database for reports of randomized controlled trials. Information on patient-reported outcomes, particularly quality of life, was extracted from eligible studies. 287 full texts reporting on 303 trials and 72 abstracts were included. 63/303 studies (20.8%) assessed quality of life and used 18 named and 4 unnamed instruments. The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI), the Infant's Dermatitis Quality of Life Index (IDQOL), and the Dermatitis Family Impact (DFI) were the most common measures in adults, children, infants, and caregivers, respectively. In conclusion, only about one fifth of eczema trials include a quality of life measure as outcome. Many different instruments are used, limiting the possibilities of comparing and synthesising individual trials' findings.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can relapse and remit over time. As many as a third of people with eczema who have a positive test for allergy to house dust mite have reported worsening of eczema or respiratory symptoms when exposed to dust. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of all house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 14 August 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant studies. We handsearched abstracts from international eczema and allergy meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any of the house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema, which included participants of any age diagnosed by a clinician with eczema as defined by the World Allergy Organization. We included all non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that sought to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite and their allergenic faeces. The comparators were any active treatment, no treatment, placebo, or standard care only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently checked the titles and abstracts identified, and there were no disagreements. We contacted authors of included studies for additional information. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies of 324 adults and children with eczema. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of bias. Four of the seven trials tested interventions with multiple components, and three tested a single intervention. Two of the seven trials included only children, four included children and adults, and one included only adults. Interventions to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite included covers for mattresses and bedding, increased or high-quality vacuuming of carpets and mattresses, and sprays that kill house dust mites.Four studies assessed our first primary outcome of 'Clinician-assessed eczema severity using a named scale'. Of these, one study (n = 20) did not show any significant short-term benefit from allergen impermeable polyurethane mattress encasings and acaricide spray versus allergen permeable cotton mattress encasings and placebo acaricide spray. One study (n = 60) found a modest statistically significant benefit in the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) scale over six months (mean difference of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.7), P = 0.008) in favour of a mite impermeable bedding system combined with benzyltannate spray and high-filtration vacuuming versus mite permeable cotton encasings, water with a trace of alcohol spray, and a low-filtration vacuum cleaner. The third study (n = 41) did not compare the change in severity of eczema between the two treatment groups. The fourth study (n = 86) reported no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups.With regard to the secondary outcomes 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed global eczema severity score' and the 'Amount and frequency of topical treatment required', one study (n = 20) assessed these outcomes with similar results being reported for these outcomes in both groups. Four studies (n = 159) assessed 'Sensitivity to house dust mite allergen using a marker'; there was no clear evidence of a difference in sensitivity levels reported between treatments in any of the four trials.None of the seven included studies assessed our second primary outcome 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed eczema-related quality of life using a named instrument' or the secondary outcome of 'Adverse effects'.We were unable to combine any of our results because of variability in the interventions and paucity of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to determine clear implications to inform clinical practice from the very low-quality evidence currently available. The modest treatment responses reported were in people with atopic eczema, specifically with sensitivity to one or more aeroallergens. Thus, their use in the eczema population as a whole is unknown. High-quality long-term trials of single, easy-to-administer house dust mite reduction or avoidance measures are worth pursuing.

Validation of the global resource of eczema trials (GREAT database).

BACKGROUND: Eczema (syn. Atopic Eczema or Atopic Dermatitis) is a chronic, relapsing, itchy skin condition which probably results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) is a collection of records of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eczema treatment produced from a highly sensitive search of six reference databases. We sought to assess the sensitivity of the GREAT database as a tool to save future researchers repeating extensive bibliographic searches. METHODS: All Cochrane systematic review on treatments for eczema and five non-Cochrane systematic reviews on eczema were identified as a reference set to assess the utility of the GREAT database in identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs included in the systematic reviews were checked for inclusion in the GREAT database by two independent authors. A third author resolved any disagreements. RESULTS: Five Cochrane and six non-Cochrane systematic reviews containing a total of 105 RCTs of eczema treatments were included. Of these, 95 fitted the inclusion criteria for the GREAT database and 88 were published from 2000 onwards. Of the 88 eligible studies, 92% were found in the GREAT database. Seven trials were not included in the GREAT database - two of these were reported within a review paper and one as an abstract with no trial results. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of the GREAT database for trials from 2000 onwards was high (75/88 trials, 94%). Sensitivity for the period prior to 2000 was less sensitive, due to differences in how the trials were identified prior to this time. 'Dual' filtering for new records has recently become part of the GREAT database methodology and should further improve the sensitivity of the database in time. The GREAT database can be considered as a primary source for future systematic reviews including randomised controlled trials of eczema treatments, but searches should be supplemented by checking reference lists for eligible trials, searching trial registries and contacting pharmaceutical companies for unpublished studies.

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index. RESULTS: People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: After testing, ensuring test results are communicated and actioned is important for patient safety, with failure or delay in diagnosis the most common cause of malpractice claims in primary care worldwide. Identifying interventions to improve test communication from the decision to test through to sharing of results has important implications for patient safety, GP workload, and patient engagement. AIM: To assess the factors around communication of blood test results between primary care providers (for example GPs, nurses, reception staff) and their patients and carers. DESIGN & SETTING: A mixed methods systematic review including primary studies involving communication of blood test results in primary care. METHOD: The review will use a segregated convergent synthesis method. Qualitative information will be synthesised using a meta-aggregative approach, and quantitative data will be meta-analysed or synthesised if pooling of studies is appropriate and data are available. If not, data will be presented in tabular and descriptive summary form. CONCLUSION: This review has the potential to provide conclusions about blood test result communication interventions and factors important to stakeholders, including barriers and facilitators to improved communication.

Towards global consensus on outcome measures for atopic eczema research: results of the HOME II meeting.

The use of nonstandardized and inadequately validated outcome measures in atopic eczema trials is a major obstacle to practising evidence-based dermatology. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative is an international multiprofessional group dedicated to atopic eczema outcomes research. In June 2011, the HOME initiative conducted a consensus study involving 43 individuals from 10 countries, representing different stakeholders (patients, clinicians, methodologists, pharmaceutical industry) to determine core outcome domains for atopic eczema trials, to define quality criteria for atopic eczema outcome measures and to prioritize topics for atopic eczema outcomes research. Delegates were given evidence-based information, followed by structured group discussion and anonymous consensus voting. Consensus was achieved to include clinical signs, symptoms, long-term control of flares and quality of life into the core set of outcome domains for atopic eczema trials. The HOME initiative strongly recommends including and reporting these core outcome domains as primary or secondary endpoints in all future atopic eczema trials. Measures of these core outcome domains need to be valid, sensitive to change and feasible. Prioritized topics of the HOME initiative are the identification/development of the most appropriate instruments for the four core outcome domains. HOME is open to anyone with an interest in atopic eczema outcomes research.

Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema--the GREAT database (the Global Resource of EczemA Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010).

BACKGROUND: Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects. DESCRIPTION: The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month.We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24th March 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions.The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny. CONCLUSIONS: The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk.

How Clinically Relevant Are Treatment Comparisons of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitor Trials for Atopic Eczema?

We sought to explore the architecture of trials of calcineurin inhibitors for atopic eczema to document the extent to which comparisons with active treatments such as topical corticosteroids might have been included or avoided. We identified all eligible randomized controlled trials using the Global Resource for EczemA Trials (GREAT) database. Network plots were produced where the nodes represented a treatment type and the lines between the nodes represented the number of trials or participants involved in the various treatment comparisons. A total of 174 randomized controlled trials for atopic eczema treatments were identified in which pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, or topical corticosteroids were compared with another intervention or a vehicle/emollient. Of 39 trials involving pimecrolimus and 41 trials involving tacrolimus, 8 (20.5%) and 13 (31.7%), respectively, made comparisons with topical corticosteroids, and 25 (64.1%) and 15 (36.6%), respectively, were vehicle-controlled studies. The high rate of comparisons with vehicle controls in randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus long after efficacy had been established is a matter of concern. Active comparators (mild topical corticosteroids for pimecrolimus and moderate to potent topical corticosteroids for tacrolimus) are best placed to determine how topical calcineurin inhibitors compare with established clinical practice.

Systemic therapy for vulval Erosive Lichen Planus (the 'hELP' trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Erosive lichen planus affecting the vulva (ELPV) is a relatively rare, chronic condition causing painful raw areas in the vulvovaginal region. Symptoms are pain and burning, which impact upon daily living. There is paucity of evidence regarding therapy. A 2012 Cochrane systematic review found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this field. Topically administered corticosteroids are the accepted first-line therapy: however, there is uncertainty as to which second-line treatments to use. Several systemic agents have been clinically noted to show promise for ELPV refractory to topically administered corticosteroids but there is no RCT evidence to support these. The 'hELP' study is a RCT with an internal pilot phase designed to provide high-quality evidence. METHODS/DESIGN: The objective is to test whether systemic therapy in addition to standard topical therapy is a beneficial second-line treatment for ELPV. Adjunctive systemic therapies used are hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone. Topical therapy plus a short course of prednisolone given orally is considered the comparator intervention. The trial is a four-armed, open-label, pragmatic RCT which uses a blinded independent clinical assessor. To provide 80 % power for each comparison, 96 participants are required in total. The pilot phase aims to recruit 40 participants. The primary clinical outcome is the proportion of patients achieving treatment success at 6 months. 'Success' is defined by a composite measure of Patient Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 on a 4-point scale plus improvement from baseline on clinical photographs scored by a clinician blinded to treatment allocation. Secondary clinical outcomes include 6-month assessment of: (1) Reduction in pain/soreness; (2) Global assessment of disease; (3) Response at other affected mucosal sites; (4) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores; (5) Sexual function; (6) Health-related quality of life using 'Short Form 36' and 'Skindex-29' questionnaires; (7) Days of topical steroid use; (8) Treatment satisfaction; (9) Discontinuation of medications due to treatment failure; (10) Per participant cost of intervention in each treatment group. Adverse events will also be reported. DISCUSSION: 'hELP' is the first RCT to address second-line treatment of ELPV. The trial has encountered unique methodological challenges and has required collaborative efforts of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network alongside expert clinicians. CURRENT CONTROLLED TRIALS: ISRCTN 81883379 . Date of registration 12 June 2014.

How Often Do Comparative Randomised Controlled Trials in the Field of Eczema Fail to Directly Compare the Treatments Being Tested?

The objective of the study was to identify all parallel design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for eczema in recent dermatology literature that have failed to report a between-group analysis. The GREAT database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) was searched to identify parallel group RCTs comparing two or more interventions published in the English language in the last decade, 2004 to 2013. The primary outcome was the number of studies that had not reported a between-group analysis for any of the outcomes. Where possible we re-analysed the data to determine whether a between-group analysis would have given a different conclusion to that reported. Out of a total of 304 RCTs in the study period, 173 (56.9%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 173 eligible studies, 12 (6.9%) had not conducted a between-group analysis for any of the reported outcomes. There was no clear improvement over time. Five of the eight studies that were re-analysed yielded non-significant between-group differences yet reported significant within-group comparisons. All but one of the 12 studies implied that the experimental intervention was successful despite not undertaking any between-group comparisons. Although the proportion of all RCTs that fail to report an appropriate between-group analysis is small, the fact that any scientist who purports to compare one treatment against another then chooses to omit the key comparison statistic is worrying.

Prospective registration and outcome-reporting bias in randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments: a systematic review.

We assessed completeness of trial registration and the extent of outcome-reporting bias in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of eczema (atopic dermatitis) treatments by surveying all relevant RCTs published from January 2007 to July 2011 located in a database called the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT). The GREAT database is compiled by searching six bibliographic databases, including EMBASE and MEDLINE. Out of 109 identified RCTs, only 37 (34%) had been registered on an approved trial register. Only 18 out of 109 trials (17%) had been registered "properly" in terms of submitting the registration before the trial end date and nominating a primary outcome. The proportion of "any registered" and "properly registered" RCTs increased from 19% and 10% in 2007 to 57% and 36% in 2011, respectively. Assessment of selective outcome-reporting bias was difficult even among the properly registered trials owing to unclear primary outcome description especially with regard to timing. Only 5 out of the 109 trials (5%) provided enough information for us to be confident that the outcomes reported in the published trial were consistent with the original registration. Adequate trial registration and description of primary outcomes for eczema RCTs is currently poor.