{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034482758620689655, 'fraction_numerical': 0.036251105216622455, 'mean_word_length': 4.865284974093265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis: a summarised Cochrane review

Four RCTs involving 894 participants from different occupations were included. The primary outcome was numbers of new cases. One large RCT of 708 print and dye workers compared 2 barrier creams (containing silicone or hydrocarbon) versus no intervention. Fewer workers using barrier creams developed OIHD than those who did not (39.9% vs. 45% (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53–1.07. P = 0.11), but this was not statistically significant. In 1 RCT of 54 metal workers less developed OIHD when using an after work emollient or a barrier cream compared to no intervention. There was no statistical difference between the groups at different times of follow-up. One RCT of 111 cleaners and kitchen workers compared a moisturiser (Locobase ) versus no intervention using a cross-over design. While using the moisturiser no participant developed OIHD. During the control period with no skin treatment, 19 (20.4%) out of 93 participants developed OIHD. One RCT of 21 hairdressers compared a barrier cream containing aluminium chlorohydrate (Excipial PD