Study	Reason for exclusion
Aertgeerts 1985	The study included participants with different dermatoses on arms, hands, and legs. It was not clear for which participants the hands were involved and how the outcome was in the participants with hand eczema. This within‐participant study was not randomised and therefore was excluded
Berndt 2001	Participants did not have hand eczema. The study examined slightly irritated hands in nurses. The study may be included in the Skin Group Review titled "Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis"
Chen 2015	Hand and foot eczema combined; no separate data available
Gergovska 2017	Study focusses on prevention instead of treatment for active disease
Grivcheva‐Panovska 2013	Study on Staphylococcus aureus colonisation instead of hand eczema
Güler Özden 2004	Not clear whether participants were randomised to different treatment arms
HogenEsch 1998	Pilot study, in which it is unclear how many were allocated to each intervention. Not clear if the study was randomised
Petering 2004	Non‐randomised study with a within‐participant (left‐right) design. It could be argued whether randomisation is important in this left‐right study with bilateral hand eczema of similar severity. Observer of outcomes was blinded
Rosén 1987	Quasi‐randomised
Zeichner 2018	Single‐arm study without a comparator
Zimmerman 1967	It is unclear whether this within‐participant study was randomised Study on 54 participants with "bilateral, symmetrical areas of dermatitis" and stating only the preference for betamethasone 17‐valerate or fluocinolone acetonide ointment for 8 participants with hand eczema. No other outcomes for hand eczema specified. No information on frequency, dosage, and duration of treatment