Rudner 1970.

Methods	Study type: individual RCT Randomisation method: a standard randomisation sheet was used Blinding: double‐blind Intention‐to‐treat analysis used: no
Participants	Inclusion criteria of the trial Not reported. Each had seborrhoeic dermatitis occurring primarily in the nasolabial folds Exclusion criteria of the trial Not reported Number of randomised participants: 50 in total (the initial group assignment numbers have not been reported. By the end of the study, there were 24 participants in the fluocinolone group and 19 participants in the vehicle group) Number of dropouts: 7 (14%) Sex of those who completed (baseline was not reported): 21 males and 22 females Age: not reported as mean, median, or range (reported as number of participants in 6 different age groups) Country: USA
Interventions	Treatment Fluocinolone acetonide solution 0.01%, applied on the face twice a day for 84 days (12 weeks) Comparator/s Propylene glycol solution, applied on the face twice daily for 84 days (12 weeks) Each participant was instructed to shampoo the scalp once weekly with Drytergent®
Outcomes	Clinical severity scores (erythema and scaling, scale 1+ to 3+) excluding scalp, clinical photographs
Notes	Only inpatients were included
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	This was not reported in detail Quote: "standard randomization sheet"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	This was not reported
Similarity of the study groups (selection bias)	Unclear risk	This was not reported
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Low risk	The study was double‐blind, but it was not reported specifically which parties were blinded. Nevertheless, the participants received the intervention and the comparison in identical containers
Blinding of care providers (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Whilst the study was reported to be double‐blind, it was not clear who was blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Whilst the study was reported to be double‐blind, it was not clear who was blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The dropout rate was 24% in the control group. The initial group assignment numbers were not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Prespecified outcomes were reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias was identified