Lin 2015.

Methods	Four‐week randomised parallel controlled trial
Participants	Forty‐four infants of both genders with newly diagnosed eczema based on the diagnostic criteria for eczema up to 3 years of age were recruited. Randomisation was done at 1:2 ratio: 22 participants were randomised in each group. Infants who had been treated with antibiotics, probiotics, or other drugs and food at least 2 weeks before the start of the study were excluded. Also excluded were children suffering from pneumonia, capillary bronchitis, and other diseases, or who had been treated with antibiotics or hormones during the experimental process Infants were treated with antiallergic therapy and dietary guidance Recruitment took place in a secondary paediatric setting in China between December 2010 and March 2011
Interventions	Intervention group received triple viable capsules containing Bifidobacterium bifidum 3 times daily for 4 weeks Control group received no treatment
Outcomes	• Total SCORAD index at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention • Bifidobacterium bifidum stool levels at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment
Notes	Sponsorship of the trial not declared. Not clear what role the supplier of the probiotic played in the study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The 40 infants were randomly divided into treatment and control groups" Judgement: inadequate information on randomisation method; risk of bias judged as unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Inadequate information for a judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "The control group … did not receive any special treatment and were not administered a placebo drug" Judgement: unlikely to be done adequately with no treatment and no placebo in the control group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "The control group … did not receive any special treatment and were not administered a placebo drug" Otherwise no information on blinding of outcome assessors; hence risk of detection bias judged to be unclear
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information provided on losses to follow‐up and missing outcome data Judgement: unclear risk of bias
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Not clear what role the supplier of the probiotic played in the study. Sponsorship of the trial not declared Judgement: unclear risk of commercial bias