Dermatological games: Part 2. What has changed 40 years on?

In this two-part report, we review and critically appraise 'Dermatological games' by J. A. Cotterill, a seminal article published in 1981, which attempted to explain the interaction between dermatologists and patients using Berne's game theory. Part 1 described and critically appraised the educational value of Cotterill's original list of games in relation to how they apply to dermatology practice. In Part 2, a list of new 'games' that might be observed in current dermatological practice is introduced. The relevance of Cotterill's paper and an explanation for why his article remains relevant to dermatology practice and training today is scrutinized, in order to stimulate discussion and improve patient care.

Dermatological games: Part 1. Original description and critique.

'Dermatological games' by J. A. Cotterill was a seminal article published in 1981, which attempted to explain the interaction between dermatologists and patients using Berne's game theory. In Part 1 of this series of two reviews, we review Cotterill's original list of games and how they applied to dermatology in the context of when they were written. We then critically appraise Cotterill's article and arguments. Although the article was deliberately provocative, we found Cotterill's arguments to be well-structured and logical, and the 'games' described are well-conceived. Cotterill's candid analysis of doctors' motivations and the potential impact on the patient is refreshing and insightful. It is striking that, 40 years on, many of the original 'games' described remain recognizable in current practice. In Part 2, a list of new 'games' that might be observed in modern dermatological practice is introduced. The relevance of Cotterill's paper and an explanation for why his educational article remains relevant to dermatology practice and training today is scrutinized in order to stimulate discussion, promote education and improve patient care.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2019. Part 1: Risk factors and prevention.

This review is part of an annual evidence update on atopic eczema (AE), providing a summary of key findings from 18 systematic reviews published in 2019 on AE risk factors and prevention. Parental atopy, particularly AE, is a risk factor for offspring AE, and this risk is augmented both by the number of parental atopic diseases present and the number of affected parents. Low-quality evidence suggests that autumn or winter birth increases childhood AE risk compared with birth in spring. There is some evidence to support filaggrin gene-environment interactions; however, this is limited by small underpowered studies. There is no evidence to suggest that polymorphisms in the -1082, -592 and -819 loci of the interleukin-10 gene increase susceptibility to AE. There is no robust evidence to support a relationship between childhood AE development and either yoghurt consumption in the first year of life, gut microbiota variants, prenatal or infantile paracetamol exposure, maternal antibiotic exposure or air pollution. Three systematic reviews investigated the effect of probiotics given during pregnancy or infancy; although low-quality evidence suggests benefits of combined probiotics, these studies were limited by significant heterogeneity. No relationship between the age at which complementary food and beverages are introduced and the risk of developing AE in infancy was identified. Consistent evidence showed no relationship between human milk feeding and infant AE development, aside from limited evidence suggesting a protective role in those with atopic heredity. This summary of recent evidence related to AE risk factors and prevention highlights the complex aetiology of AE.

Assessing the effect of clinical trial evidence and anecdote on caregivers' willingness to use corticosteroids: a randomized controlled trial: a critical appraisal.

AIM: Johnson et al. aimed to assess caregivers' willingness to treat childhood atopic dermatitis (AD) with a corticosteroid when presented with clinical trial evidence, anecdote, or both. SETTING AND DESIGN: This prospective parallel group (1: 1; eight groups) randomized control trial (RCT) was carried out with caregivers recruited from a tertiary care dermatology clinic in the USA and an online crowdsourcing platform using caregivers who may not have had a child with AD. STUDY EXPOSURE: Caregivers were randomized to eight groups. The three main groups were given clinical trial evidence, anecdote, or a combination of both. Each of these three groups was further divided and presented with either the term 'medication' or 'topical steroid'. These were compared with the two remaining groups, which included a group told that they would not be informed of a medication's efficacy or safety profile, and a group informed that the medication was recommended by the doctor. OUTCOME: Caregivers were asked about their willingness to treat based on the information they had received using a 10-point Likert scale where 1 was 'not willing' and 10 'completely willing'. RESULTS: A total of 476 caregivers were recruited (80 clinic, 396 online), 48% of whom had a history of a child with AD. Caregivers' willingness to treat was higher in all information assignment groups compared with those not provided with safety information: clinical trial evidence of a 'medication' (P = 0·003; Cohen's d = 0·83) or 'topical steroid' (P = 0·030; d = 0·55), anecdote of a 'medication' (P < 0·0001; d = 1·37) or 'topical steroid' (P < 0·0001; d = 0·85), both clinical trial evidence and anecdote of a 'medication' (P < 0·0001; d = 1·00) or 'topical steroid' (P = 0·000; d = 0·89), and simply the doctor's recommendation (P < 0·0001; d = 0·92). CONCLUSION: Johnson et al. conclude that the provision of anecdotal reassurance may be an effective strategy to improve caregivers' willingness to use topical steroids. COMMENT: Exploring factors that affect caregivers' willingness to adhere to topical corticosteroids is an important area of research. This study was a potentially efficient way of conducting a rapid RCT to explore such factors. The study conclusions are significantly undermined by lack of a registered trial protocol, poor trial reporting, the use of caregivers who did not have experience of AD, the multiplicity and complexity of treatment arms, and the use of an unvalidated primary outcome.