Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review: S. aureus and atopic eczema

Bath-Hextall, F.J., Birnie, A.J., Ravenscroft, J.C., Williams, H.C.·2010·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An association between the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus and atopic eczema has been recognized for many years. Although few would dispute the benefit of systemic antibiotics in people with overtly clinically infected eczema, the clinical role of S. aureus in causing inflammatory flares in clinically uninfected eczema is less clear. OBJECTIVES/METHODS: To see if atopic eczema can be improved by antistaphylococcal agents, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using Cochrane Skin Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (from 2000), EMBASE (from 1980), the metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials (to March 2009), plus manual searching of references and conference proceedings. RCTs that compared interventions to reduce S. aureus in people with atopic eczema with no treatment, vehicle, or another active compound were included. Publication status and language were not barriers to inclusion. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 1229 participants were included. The studies were generally short term and of poor quality. There was no significant difference in global outcome for clinically infected eczema when oral antibiotics were compared with placebo [one study, relative risk (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-1.24] or when topical steroid antibiotic combinations were compared with steroid alone (two studies, RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23-1.16). One study of children with infected eczema that added bleach to bathwater showed a significant improvement in eczema severity when compared with bathwater alone, although the difference could have been explained by regression to the mean. Although antistaphylococcal interventions reduced S. aureus numbers in people with clinically uninfected eczema, none of the studies showed any clinical benefit. CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find any evidence that commonly used antistaphylococcal interventions are clinically helpful in people with eczema that is not clinically infected. Their continued use should be questioned in such situations, until better and longer-term studies show clear evidence of clinical benefit.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09743.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Bath-Hextall, F. J., Birnie, A. J., Ravenscroft, J. C., & Williams, H. C.
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
2010-03-05
Volume
163
Issue
1
Pages
12-26
ISSN
0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1922871350
Cited by
227
References
0
FWCI
14.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review: S. aureus and atopic eczema. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09743.x
The paper
Bath-Hextall, F. J., Birnie, A. J., Ravenscroft, J. C., & Williams, H. C. (2010). Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema: an updated Cochrane review: S. aureus and atopic eczema. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09743.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.