Uggeldahl 1986.

Methods	Within‐participant, randomised controlled trial This study was conducted in a secondary care setting, probably at 2 centres in Finland
Participants	50 (46) participants (1.5 to 70 years) with bilateral moderate hand/wrist/lower arm eczema, with left‐right comparable severity, were included; 4 were excluded because of asymmetrical hand eczema Dropouts: 2 Inclusion criteria of the trial Bilateral and symmetrical moderate eczema of the hand, wrist, and lower arm Exclusion criteria of the trial Not stated Study population Gender: not stated Age: mean 27 years, range 1.5 to 70 years
Interventions	Intervention • Desonide cream 0.1% twice daily for 2 weeks in 44/46 hands • Desonide cream 0.05% twice daily in 44/46 contralateral hands for 2 weeks Duration 2 weeks
Outcomes	Primary outcomes of the trial Not defined Other outcomes Observer‐rated score 0 to 4 (0 = absent and 4 = maximum severity) for inflammation, infiltration, desquamation, lichenification, itching, tenderness, and chapping, after 4 to 7 days and after 11 to 14 days Participant‐rated therapeutic effect: both hands equal or one hand better than the other at days 11 to 14 Adverse events
Notes	In fact, 50 participants were randomised, but 4 participants were excluded at the start. Not clear whether inclusion criteria of the trial (hand/wrist/lower arm) stipulated that the hands had to be involved in all participants. The youngest participant was 1.5 years old Aim was to study equivalency, but this was not reflected in the analysis The secondary outcomes ‐ reduction in severity, investigator‐rated and participant‐rated ‐ were included but did not provide reproducible data Declarations of interest: 2 study authors were employees of the research department at Apothekernes Laboratorium A.S., Oslo, Norway, the manufacturer of the study drugs Funding: see above item Sample size rationale: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "the study consisted of a double‐blind, randomized, left‐right comparative study..." Comment: stated only that this was a randomised study. No further details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "each patient was given 2 tubes identical in appearance...." Quote: "according to the double‐blind nature of the study, the creams were randomly allocated to the left and right side..." Comment: no details about how allocation was concealed from participants and clinicians. The identical tubes were randomly allocated to left and right sides
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "each patient was given 2 tubes identical in appearance...." Comment: the only difference between the 2 tubes was the concentration, wherefore this is considered as low risk
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "...double‐blind nature..." Comment: unclear whether observers were aware of the treatment modalities, although study authors claim double‐blind design
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No intention‐to‐treat analysis but per protocol (44 or 46 of 50 = more than 80%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No trial registration found. No major discrepancies between Methods and Results sections
Other bias	Low risk	Baseline comparisons: within‐participant study not applicable Diagnostic certainty: yes The study was completed