↓ Skip to main content

A multi-centre, parallel group superiority trial of silk therapeutic clothing compared to standard care for the management of eczema in children (CLOTHES Trial): study protocol for a randomised…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A multi-centre, parallel group superiority trial of silk therapeutic clothing compared to standard care for the management of eczema in children (CLOTHES Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0921-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleanor F. Harrison, Rachel H. Haines, Fiona Cowdell, Tracey H. Sach, Taraneh Dean, Ian Pollock, Nigel P. Burrows, Hannah Buckley, Jonathan Batchelor, Hywel C. Williams, Sandra Lawton, Sara J. Brown, Lucy E. Bradshaw, Amina Ahmed, Alan A. Montgomery, Eleanor J. Mitchell, Kim S. Thomas

Abstract

Eczema is a chronic, itchy skin condition that can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and their families. People with eczema are often keen to try out non-pharmacological therapies like silk therapeutic garments that could reduce itching or the damage caused by scratching. However, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these garments in the management of eczema has yet to be proven. The CLOTHES Trial will test the hypothesis that 'silk therapeutic garments plus standard eczema care' is superior to 'standard care alone' for children with moderate to severe eczema. Parallel group, observer-blind, pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 6 months' duration. Three hundred children aged 1 to 15 years with moderate to severe eczema will be randomised (1:1) to receive silk therapeutic garments plus standard eczema care, or standard eczema care alone. Primary outcome is eczema severity, as assessed by trained and blinded investigators at 2, 4 and 6 months (using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)). Secondary outcomes include: patient-reported eczema symptoms (collected weekly for 6 months to capture long-term control); global assessment of severity; quality of life of the child, family and main carer; use of standard eczema treatments (emollients, corticosteroids applied topically, calcineurin inhibitors applied topically and wet wraps); frequency of infections; and cost-effectiveness. The acceptability and durability of the clothing will also be assessed, as will adherence to wearing the garments. A nested qualitative study will assess the views of a subset of children wearing the garments and their parents, and those of healthcare providers and commissioners. Randomisation uses a computer-generated sequence of permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by recruiting hospital and child's age (< 2 years; 2 to 5 years; > 5 years), and concealed using a secure web-based system. The sequence of treatment allocations will remain concealed until randomisation and data collection are complete. Recruitment is taking place from November 2013 to May 2015, and the trial will be completed in 2016. Full details of results will be published in the National Institute for Health Research Journal series. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365 (registered 11 November 2013).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Psychology 12 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 27 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,698,873
of 11,349,388 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#998
of 2,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,317
of 237,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#45
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,349,388 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 237,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.