Table 3.
Summary of findings of CAM for childhood atopic eczema in randomized controlled trials
| Study ID | Sample size | Main intervention | Estimate effect [95% CI] | Outcome | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAM vs usual care | |||||
| Liu CH 2009 [20] | T:150 C:148 | Swimming therapy | RR 1.01 [0.92, 1.11] RR 1.01 [0.96, 1.07] RR 0.38 [0.28, 0.52] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs Relapse rate |
P = 0.8318 P = 0.5671 P < 0.00001 |
| Liu WQ 2016 [21] | T:60 C:60 | Fasting and Rotation diet | RR 1.57 [1.04, 2.38] RR 1.32 [1.09, 1.60] RR 0.36 [0.12, 1.08] |
Clinical effectiveness 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs; Relapse rate |
P = 0.0323 P = 0.0049 P = 0.0681 |
| Wu YQ 2014 [22] | T:74 C:74 | Velvetfeeling lotion (external application) | RR 1.92 [1.36, 2.72] RR 1.33 [1.10, 1.61] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs |
P = 0.0002 P = 0.0031 |
| CAM + usual care vs usual care | |||||
| Chen DX 2015 [23] | T:20 C:20 | Bifid Triple Viable capsules (oral) | RR 1.63 [0.87, 3.04] RR 1.73 [1.15, 2.60] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs |
P = 0.1283 P = 0.0088 |
| Chen YL 2015 [24] | T:58 C:58 | Probiotics (oral) | RR 1.21 [0.87, 1.68] RR 1.19 [0.99, 1.42] RR 0.31 [0.16, 0.60] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs Relapse rate |
P = 0.2659 P = 0.0624 P = 0.0004 |
| Guo YH 2015 [25] | T:90 C:90 | Tetralogy of viable bifidobacterium tablets (oral) | RR 1.37 [1.01, 1.85] RR 1.27 [1.04, 1.55] RR 0.39 [0.27, 0.56] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs Relapse rate |
P = 0.0400 P = 0.0172 P < 0.00001 |
| Jiang YX 2013 [26] | T:65 C:60 | Velvetfeeling lotion (external application) | RR 1.85 [0.90, 3.79] RR 1.91 [1.46, 2.50] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs |
P = 0.0947 P < 0.00001 |
| Li DY 2012 [27] | T:32 C:30 | Bifid Triple Viable capsules (oral) | RR 1.36 [1.03, 1.79] RR 1.32 [1.06, 1.65] RR 0.28 [0.13, 0.60] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs; Relapse rate |
P = 0.0295 P = 0.0151 P = 0.0011 |
| Mao HX 2013 [28] | T:50 C:50 | Probiotics (oral) | RR 0.17 [0.04, 0.71] | Relapse rate | P = 0.0151 |
| Wei MX 2010 [29] | T:38 C:36 | Viable Bacillus Coagulans tablets (oral) | RR 1.33 [1.05, 1.68] RR 1.30 [1.07, 1.58] RR 0.28 [0.14, 0.56] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs; Relapse rate |
P = 0.0189 P = 0.0089 P = 0.0004 |
| Ye CQ 2017 [30] | T:48 C:48 | Condensation living bacterium bacillus (oral) | RR 1.57 [1.21, 2.02] RR 1.31 [1.10, 1.55] RR 0.21 [0.10, 0.47] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs; Relapse rate |
P = 0.0005 P = 0.0019 P = 0.0001 |
| Zhang MH 2013 [31] | T:35 C:35 | Bifico Lriple Viable (oral) | RR 1.15 [0.91, 1.46] RR 0.38 [0.17, 0.85] |
50% Improvement of symptoms and signs; Relapse rate |
P = 0.2371 P = 0.0180 |
| Zhang XN 2013 [32] | T:36 C:34 | Velvetfeeling lotion (external application) | RR 6.61 [1.62, 26.96] RR 1.25 [1.00, 1.56] |
Clinical effectiveness rate 50% Improvement of symptoms and signs |
P = 0.0084 P = 0.0542 |
| CAM vs placebo | |||||
| Reza 2011 [35] | T:19 C:21 | Synbiotic (oral) | MD 19.10 [7.60, 30.60] | Clinical effectiveness scores | P = 0.0017 |
| Sergei V. Gerasimov 2010 [37] | T:48 C:48 | Probiotics (oral) | MD 6.40 [2.71, 10.09] | Clinical effectiveness scores | P = 0.0009 |
| Wu YJ 2017 [39] | T:33 C:33 | Probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus) (oral) | MD 10.85 [3.82, 17.88] | Clinical effectiveness scores | P = 0.0035 |
| Yavuz 2012 [40] | T:20 C:20 | Probiotic (oral) | MD 10.20 [7.45, 12.95] | Clinical effectiveness scores | P < 0.00001 |
| Youngshin 2012 [41] | T:58 C:60 | Probiotics (L. plantarum CJLP133) (oral) | MD 7.30 [2.63, 11.97] | Clinical effectiveness scores | P = 0.0029 |
CAM complementary and alternative medicine, RR risk ratio, MD mean difference, CI confidence interval