Uptake and reporting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Core Outcome Set in randomized clinical trials for topical anti-inflammatory treatments in Atopic Dermatitis
In brief
Only 15% to 27% of eczema trials properly report core outcomes
Among 49 topical-treatment trials published since 2018, only 15% to 27% reported core outcomes in line with recommended standards. Eczema severity was measured most often, while patient-reported symptoms and quality of life were less consistently captured; poor reporting meant up to 67% of quality-of-life data could not be used, limiting comparisons across trials.
- Journal
- The British journal of dermatology (Q1)
- Published
- 21 September 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Sai Surabi Thirugnanasampanthar, Renee Gabrielle Fajardo, Robert Boyle, Yael Leshem, Phylis Spuls, Stephanie Lax, et al.
- PMID
- 42765835
- DOI
- 10.1093/bjd/ljag415
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Dermatology (top studies of the week, 27 September 2026): HOME outcome set uptake in AD trials
Abstract
Inconsistent outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) limits comparability. We evaluated uptake and reporting of Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) core instruments (EASI, POEM, itch NRS, DLQI) in topical AD RCTs published from 2018 onward. Among 49 eligible RCTs, EASI was most frequently reported (83.7%), followed by DLQI (34.7%), itch NRS (30.6%), and POEM (26.5%). Proper reporting aligned with HOME guidelines was low (15.4-26.7%). Inadequate reporting led to substantial participant-level data waste, reaching up to 67.2% for DLQI. In summary, HOME core outcome uptake and standardized reporting remain limited, particularly for patient-reported outcomes.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.