Wu 2015.

Methods	Eight‐week parallel‐group 2‐centre randomised double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial
Participants	Sixty‐seven children 4 to 48 months of age with atopic dermatitis diagnosed using Hanifin‐Rajka criteria with SCORAD > 15 at enrolment. Randomisation was done at a 1:1 ratio: 34 participants were randomised in the intervention arm, and 33 in the control arm Exclusion criteria: clinically evident infection in skin lesions, severe asthma or acute asthma attack within 3 months, autoimmune disease, immunodeficiency, exposure to phototherapy, use of systemic corticosteroids within 1 month
Interventions	Active: 1 capsule of ComProbi containing 350 mg ofLactobacillus rhamnosus (MP108) and maltodextrin per day Control: 1 capsule of maltodextrin per day If capsule could not be swallowed, parents were instructed to mix the powder in water, breast milk, milk, or food heated to < 40°C Rescue medication: Cutivate cream (GlaxoSmithKline, Duhram, UK) in cases of uncontrolled symptoms
Outcomes	Primary • Change in SCORAD after 8‐week treatment Secondary • Change in SCORAD at post‐baseline visits • Frequency and total quantity of corticosteroids used during 8‐week treatment • Comparison of frequency of atopic dermatitis and symptom‐free duration • Comparisong of mean changes from baseline in IDQoL at weeks 4 and 8 • Comparisong of mean changes from baseline on Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire at weeks 4 and 8
Notes	Contact: cshy095@csh.org.tw Country: Taiwan Study registration not given CY Biotech provided probiotic, but it is not clear whether the company had a role in study design, data analysis, or interpretation or other aspects of the study. However, study authors declared no conflicts of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Inadequate information provided; stated that the study was "randomised"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study stated as "double‐blind", but no information provided to explain who was blinded and how blinding was done
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study stated as "double‐blind", but no information provided to explain who was blinded and how blinding was done
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3 (9%) from the probiotic arm and 1 (3%) from the control arm Study authors present data derived from intention‐to‐treat analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	All predefined outcomes were at least described, but not all data were given. No clinical trial registration was given
Other bias	Unclear risk	CY Biotech provided probiotic, but it is not clear whether the company had a role in study design, data analysis or interpretation, or other aspects of the study. However study authors declared no conflict of interest Hence we judged the study to be at unclear risk of commercial bias