Bayerl 1999.

Methods	Parallel‐group, randomised controlled trial The study was conducted in the secondary setting at 2 different dermatology departments in Germany
Participants	48 participants with chronic hand eczema (21 irritant, 18 allergic, 9 atopic) > 3 months' duration, more than 30% of the hands involved. All had occupation‐related hand eczema: 41% were in a wet occupation Dropouts: 12 Inclusion criteria of the trial Occupational chronic hand eczema of > 3 months' duration > 30% involvement of hands Exclusion criteria of the trial Non‐compliance Liver disease Porphyria Polymorphic light dermatitis Use of light‐sensitive medication Malignancies Use of chemotherapies or immunosuppressives History of skin malignancies Specific topical or systemic therapy (including corticosteroids and coal tar) Study population Gender: not stated Age: not stated
Interventions	Intervention • UV‐B phototherapy 5 days/week for 8 weeks in 19/24 participants Control intervention • No UVB for 8 weeks in 17/24 participants Both groups were allowed to use non‐specific creams/emollients Duration 8 weeks
Outcomes	Primary outcomes of the trial Not defined Other outcomes Observer‐rated extent of hand eczema, and scoring 1 to 4 (1 = absent, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, 4 = severe) on erythema, oedema, maceration, excoriation, lichenification, fissuration, infection, scaling, itch Participant‐rated VAS (0 to 10) on itching and restrictions in daily life TEWL and Nitrazinyellow‐test Adverse events
Notes	Study authors rightly state that this is a pilot study. Only graphic presentation of a few components of some outcome parameters. Not clear, but assumed, that 24 participants were randomised to each group. The secondary outcome ‐ reduction in severity, investigator‐rated ‐ was included but did not provide reproducible data Study authors were contacted on 7 March 2014 and responded 10 March 2014 Declarations of interest: not stated Funding: not stated Sample size rationale: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The article states only that the study is randomised, without details about the method of randomisation. Personal communication clarified that the same method was used as in Adams 2007: "cards with the characterisation "A" and "B" were enclosed in envelopes by a third person, mixed like a card play by a third person, then numbered consecutively by a third person and opened by the study doctor consecutively after informed consent to the study" This is an adequate method
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	No details about whether the allocation was concealed from participants and investigators in the article, but personal communication clarified that this was done appropriately by a third person, and that the study doctor and participants opened the consecutively numbered envelopes after informed consent was retrieved
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel were not blinded during the study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Observers were not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	No intention‐to‐treat analysis but per protocol (36 of 48 = less than 80%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No trial registration found; however outcomes described in Materials and Methods are depicted in the Results section and are adequate
Other bias	Unclear risk	Baseline comparisons: no baseline comparisons regarding group differences (randomisation check) Diagnostic certainty: yes The study was completed