Cao 2009.

Methods	This was a randomised, non‐blinded, controlled, parallel clinical trial
Participants	1. Setting: The trial recruited participants from an outpatient department of a university teaching hospital in Nanjing, China 2. Age: from 2 to 16 years of age 3. Sex (men/women): 32/24 4. Number of participants randomised: 56 5. T/C: 32/24
Interventions	I. Treatment group 1. Zhuling Jianpi Huashi decoction with individualised modifications 1.1 Ingredients and dosage Fuling (Poria) 6 g Cangzhu (Rhizoma atractylodis) 6 g Baizhu (Rhizoma atractylodis macrocephalae) 6 g Chenpi (Pericarpium citri reticulatae) 3 g Zexie (Rhizoma alismatis) 6 g Baixianpi (Cortex dictamni) 6 g Maiya (Fructus hordei germinatus) 15 g Huashi (Talcum) 6 g Gancao(Radix glycyrrhizae) 4 g 1.2 Administration 1 package per day, drink the decoction twice daily 1.3 Duration of treatment 1 to 4 weeks 1.4 Follow up Did not state II. Control group a. oral ingestion 2. Cetirizine hydrochloride drops 2.1 Ingredients and dosage 0.5 ml for 2‐ to 6‐year‐old participants, 1.0 ml for 7‐ to 16‐year‐old participants 2.2 Administration Once daily 2.3 Duration of treatment 1 to 4 weeks 2.4 Follow up Did not state ‐ CHM lotion and cream (external use) were applied in both groups
Outcomes	1. Percentage of reduction of total SASSAD score 2. Effectiveness rate 3. Adverse events All assessments were conducted at baseline, week 4, and at the end of the 8‐week treatment period, respectively
Notes	1. The trial investigator claimed they included only those who were diagnosed with AD and identified as "spleen deficiency with accumulation of dampness" in Chinese medicine 2. Effectiveness rate = ((pre‐treatment score of SASSAD ‐ post‐treatment score of SASSAD)/pre‐treatment score of SASSAD) * 100% 3. The treatment intervention used was the same as the 1 orally used in Zhang 2005 4. The SASSAD scores were expressed as 'numbers ±' without labels, and we assumed they meant mean ± SD
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "...used SPSS software for randomisation..."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	This was not stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "...no blinding was required"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "...no blinding was required"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "Those who were not compliant with the treatment were excluded" Comment: The numbers of participants randomised and analysed were equivalent. It seems that there were no withdrawals/dropouts in this study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	There was insufficient information
Other potential sources of bias (use of published validated scoring system )	Low risk	The trial used SASSAD