A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of a New Topical Steroid “Halcinonide” and Hydrocortisone in Steroid-Responsive Dermatoses

Fattah, Aly Abdel; El-Shiemy, Saleh; Faris, R S; Tadros, S S

doi:10.1177/030006057600400403

Cited by 8 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…16,19,20 Eight trials provide no baseline comparison data. 2,[7][8][9]13,[21][22][23] The amount of topical steroid used during the study period was generally not reported.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25 One study that evaluated a variety of steroid-responsive dermatoses, found no significant difference in global outcome for atopic dermatitis (n = 4) when comparing 0AE1% halcinonide with neomycin plus nystatin vs. 1% hydrocortisone cream in a within-patient study (left ⁄right comparison). 21 One study comparing hydrocortisone butyrate plus mupirocin with hydrocortisone butyrate or vehicle ointment in 337 children and adults found no significant difference in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores at the end of treatment (MD )1AE08, 95% CI )2AE51 to 0AE35). 15 Another study compared 3% tetracycline plus 0AE1% triamcinolone with 0AE1% triamcinolone in 44 adults with moderate ⁄severe atopic eczema and found no significant difference in SCORing of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) at the end of treatment (MD )0AE40, 95% CI )10AE39 to 9AE59).…”

Section: Clinically Uninfected or Unspecified Eczemamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review

Bath‐Hextall¹,

Birnie²,

Ravenscroft³

et al. 2010

British Journal of Dermatology

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16,19,20 Eight trials provide no baseline comparison data. 2,[7][8][9]13,[21][22][23] The amount of topical steroid used during the study period was generally not reported.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clinically Uninfected or Unspecified Eczemamentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review

Bath‐Hextall¹,

Birnie²,

Ravenscroft³

et al. 2010

British Journal of Dermatology

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four trials [ 33 - 36 ] published before 2000 and included in one Cochrane review [ 8 ], were not present in the GREAT database. All four trials were returned in the search strategy for the Cochrane systematic review [ 8 ] and so they were not found exclusively through hand searching.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEczema (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.MethodsAll 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.ResultsFive 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

show abstract

“…Five of the missing trials [248][249][250][251][252] most likely do not appear in the GREAT database owing to differences between the inclusion criteria of the review and the GREAT database, or their interpretation. The inclusion criteria for the GREAT database are broad and were designed to encompass all the RCTs of eczema treatment in relation to clinical benefits and harms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three trials [248][249][250] did not fit the GREAT database inclusion criteria primarily owing to not giving an adequate description of randomisation having occurred.…”

Section: Assessment Of the Trials Missing From The Great Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Kim

Batchelor

Bath‐Hextall

et al. 2016

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Programme Grants for Applied ResearchISSN 2050-4322 (Print) ISSN 2050-4330 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full PGfAR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/pgfar. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Programme Grants for Applied Research journalReports are published in Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the PGfAR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. Programme Grants for Applied Research programmeThe Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 2006 to produce independent research findings that will have practical application for the benefit of patients and the NHS in the relatively near future. The Programme is managed by the NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) with strategic input from the Programme Director.The programme is a national response mode funding scheme that aims to provide evidence to improve health outcomes in England through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management (including safety and quality), with particular emphasis on conditions causing significant disease burden.For more information about the PGfAR programme please visit the website: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/programme-grants-forapplied-research.htm This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by PGfAR as project number RP-PG-0407-10177. The contractual start date was in September 2008. The final report began editorial review in April 2014 and was accepted for publication in April 2016. As the funder, the PGfAR programme agreed the research questions and study designs in advance with the investigators. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The PGfAR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, CCF, NETSCC, PGfAR or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, ...

show abstract

A Comparative Clinical Evaluation of a New Topical Steroid “Halcinonide” and Hydrocortisone in Steroid-Responsive Dermatoses

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review

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

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About