A critical analysis of previously published clinical study aimed to compare the therapeutic equivalence of two multicomponent drugs for topical treatment of infected dermatoses is presented. The study design and its methodology are considered, a critical evaluation of the results obtained and its possible interpretation are given. It was noted, the considered study contains a number of methodological shortcomings; therefore, the study conclusions are doubtful and cannot be served as evidence for complete therapeutic equivalence in relation to compared drugs. For example, the incorrect selection of studied patients was noted as it included patients with not only infected dermatoses but also ones with eczema without assessing the infection process or infection suspicion. Consequently, in the considered study one of the drugs is used beyond the registered indications that means off-label. In addition, the current treatment guidelines recommends the application of mono-component steroid drugs for uninfected eczema. It seems extremely important to evaluate precisely the antibacterial and antimycotic effects of multicomponent drugs in future studies of therapeutic efficacy; that was not done in the considered study. Moreover, the study represented several other flaws: there is no clear description of the statistical methods used to assess the primary efficacy endpoint; no designations are given reflecting the timing of the observation visits, etc. Concluding, the analysis of the article by A.A. Khaldin et al. «An open randomized comparative study evaluating the efficacy and safety of domestic and foreign topical multicomponent drugs in the complex therapy of eczema» published in the «Clinical Dermatology and Venereology» No.3, 2019 [2] raises a number of questions regarding principals of design and execution of this study, its methodology and results’ analysis. It is not possible to interpret the study outcomes obtained without answering raised questions