Study designs of evaluations included in the review
All study designs were eligible for inclusion.
Specific interventions included in the review
It appeared that studies with high-potency (class I) corticosteroid cream and/or lotion treatment arms were eligible for inclusion. Studies of clobetasol propionate were included in the review. The included studies compared 0.05% clobetasol propionate lotion with equal strength formulations in cream or emollient cream vehicle, and a lotion vehicle control group. The test product in all the included studies appeared (from the original sources) to be Clobex lotion (Galderma Laboratories). Treatment was applied twice a day for 2 to 4 weeks.
Participants included in the review
Studies in patients with psoriasis and/or atopic dermatitis were eligible for inclusion. The participants in two studies had moderate to severe plaque-type psoriasis covering at least 10% of their body surface area and a total baseline dermatologic sum score (DSS) of 6 or more on the target area. They were at least 18 years old and predominantly white. The participants in one study had moderate to severe atopic dermatitis covering at least 20% of the body surface area and a total baseline DSS of 6 or more on the target area. They were at least 12 years old. The studies included men and women.
Outcomes assessed in the review
No inclusion criteria were stated. Measures of effectiveness and tolerability appeared to be eligible. The outcomes assessed in the included studies were the Global Severity Score (GSS), DSS, global improvement score, percentage body surface area involved, individual signs of erythema, plaque elevation and scaling measured on a Likert scale (in the psoriasis studies), pruritis measured on a Likert scale (in the dermatitis study), cosmetic acceptability to the patients, and adverse events. Two studies specified the primary outcome as success rate, derived either from the GSS or the reduction in GSS from baseline, respectively. The duration of follow-up was 28 days.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The author did not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many reviewers performed the selection.