Kircik 2013.

Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Overall Number of participants randomised: 40 Losses to follow‐up: 7 Age: M = 41.1 (19.5 to 68.1) Duration of condition: not reported Severity of condition: not reported ("subjects with uncomplicated atopic dermatitis") Male/Female: 13/26 (1 missing value for gender) Inclusion criteria: (1) diagnostic: no information given on how atopic dermatitis was defined; (2) severity of condition: "subjects with uncomplicated atopic dermatitis"; (3) duration of condition: no information given; (4) site evaluated (e.g. face/back); no information given Exclusion criteria: not reported Group differences: information from interim report: "the treatment groups were balanced with respect to all demographic and baseline characteristics"
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Levocetirizine Presentation: tablets Dose and frequency: 5 mg 1×/d Total dose: 5 mg/d Duration given for: 4 weeks Supplier and trade name if relevant: Xyzal Placebo Presentation: tablets Dose and frequency: 1×/d Total dose: n/a Duration given for: 4 weeks Supplier and trade name if relevant: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome 1: mean change in patient‐assessed symptoms: pruritus Outcome type: continuous outcome Direction: lower is better Primary outcome 2: adverse events Outcome type: adverse event Notes: "no treatment related AEs were noted in either group" Secondary outcome 2: mean change in quality of life, as measured by a standardised or validated quality of life measure (e.g. Dermatology Life Quality Index ‐ DLQI (Finlay 1994)) Outcome type: continuous outcome Direction: lower is better
Identification	Sponsorship source: UCB Pharmaceuticals Country: USA Setting: secondary Comments: single‐centre Author's name: Leon Kircik Institution: Mount Sinai Health System Address: 1169 Eastern Pkwy # 2310, Louisville, KY 40217, United States
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information about the sequence generation process insufficient to permit judgement of low risk or high risk
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information insufficient to permit judgement of low risk or high risk
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Information insufficient to permit judgement of low risk or high risk Comment: it is not clear whether medication was identical in appearance to placebo
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information given as to how assessor was blinded (i.e. information insufficient to permit judgement of low risk or high risk)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of low risk or high risk. No information given about attrition given. Although study authors report no missing outcome data, whether all randomised participants contributed to data collection remains unclear
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Comment: reporting of data was rudimentary in the report and did not allow us to run necessary analyses. Contacting the study author failed as the study author did not respond
Other bias	Unclear risk	Further risk of bias is possible, but information is insufficient to judge whether additional bias exists (e.g. no conflict of interest statement provided, but study was funded by UCB Pharmaceuticals)