Topical antibiotic monotherapy prescribing practices in acne vulgaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the frequency of dosing topical antibiotics as monotherapy in the treatment of acne vulgaris, and physician specialty prescribing these medications. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of all visits with a sole diagnosis of acne vulgaris (ICD-9-CM code 706.1) found on the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) in 1993-2010. We recorded the number of visits surveyed where acne vulgaris was the sole diagnosis, number of visits where topical antibiotics were the only treatment prescribed, and the specialty of physician in each encounter. RESULTS: Topical erythromycin or clindamycin were the sole medication prescribed in 0.81% of the visits recorded, with 60% of these prescriptions arising from dermatologists and 40% from non-dermatologists. The trend of prescribing topical antibiotic monotherapy is declining (p < 0.001) over the 18-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: The development of resistance of Propionibacterium acnes to topical antibiotic regimens has led to the need to re-evaluate the use of topical antibiotics in the treatment of acne vulgaris. While the rate of topical antibiotic monotherapy is declining, their use should be reserved for situations where the direct need for antibiotics arises. If a clinician feels that antibiotics are a necessary component to acne therapy, they should be used as part of a combination regimen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".