↓ Skip to main content

Complementary and alternative medicine for treatment of atopic eczema in children under 14 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Complementary and alternative medicine for treatment of atopic eczema in children under 14 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2306-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-li Lu, Xue-han Liu, Trine Stub, Agnete E. Kristoffersen, Shi-bing Liang, Xiao Wang, Xue Bai, Arne Johan Norheim, Frauke Musial, Terje Araek, Vinjar Fonnebo, Jian-ping Liu

Abstract

Due to limitations of conventional medicine for atopic eczema (AE), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used as an alternative, maintaining, or simultaneous treatment for AE. We aimed to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of CAM for children with AE under 14 years old. We searched for randomized trials on CAM in 12 Chinese and English databases from their inception to May 2018. We included children (< 14 years) diagnosed with AE, who received CAM therapy alone or combined with conventional medicine. We extracted data, and used the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool to assess methodological quality. Effect was presented as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using RevMan 5.3. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 2233 children with AE were included. Methodological quality was of unclear or high risk of bias in general. The trials tested 5 different types of CAM therapies, including probiotics, diet, biofilm, borage oil, and swimming. Compared to placebo, probiotics showed improved effect for the SCORAD index (MD 9.01, 95% CI 7.12-10.90; n = 5). For symptoms and signs such as itching, skin lesions, CAM combined with usual care was more effective for symptom relief ≥95% (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.68; n = 8), and for ≥50% symptoms improvement (RR 1.34, 1.25-1.45; n = 9) compared to usual care. There was no statistic significant difference between CAM and usual care on ≥95% improvement or ≥ 50% improvement of symptoms. However, swimming, diet and biofilm showed improvement of clinical symptoms compared with usual care. At follow-up of 8 weeks to 3 years, CAM alone or combined with usual care showed lower relapse rate (RR 0.38, 0.28-0.51, n = 2; RR 0.31, 0.24-0.40, n = 7; respectively) compared to usual care. Twelve out of 24 trials reported no occurrence of severe adverse events. Low evidence demonstrates that some CAM modalities may improve symptoms of childhood AE and reduce relapse rate. Safety remains unclear due to insufficient reporting. Further well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the potential beneficial effect and to establish safety use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 21%
Student > Master 10 10%
Other 8 8%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 33 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 36 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,749,734
of 20,009,828 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#315
of 3,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,913
of 292,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,009,828 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 292,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them