Systematic Review of Oral Treatments for Seborrheic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is normally treated with topical corticosteroids and antifungals. Oral therapies can be prescribed in severe or unresponsive cases. This review aims to assess the quantity and quality of published reports on oral therapies for SD. MEDLINE and Embase databases and the reference listings of publications were searched for any publication using oral treatment for SD. The quality of the included publications was assessed using a modified 27 item checklist by Downs and Black. Twenty-one publications (randomized controlled trials, open trials and case reports) covering eight oral therapies (itraconazole, terbinafine, fluconazole, ketoconazole, pramiconazole, prednisone, isotretinoin and homeopathic mineral therapy) were identified. Most of the publications investigated oral antifungals and the quality of the evidence was generally low. The clinical efficacy outcome reported varied considerably between the studies, preventing statistical analysis and direct comparison between treatments. However, ketoconazole therapy was associated with more relapses compared with other treatments. Itraconazole dosing regimen for SD was generally 200 mg/day for the first week of the month followed by 200 mg/day for the first 2 days for 2-11 months. Terbinafine was prescribed at 250 mg/day either as a continuous (4-6 weeks) or as an intermittent regimen (12 days per month) for 3 months. Fluconazole has administered daily (50 mg/day for 2 weeks) or weekly (200-300 mg) for 2-4 weeks. Ketoconazole dosing regimen was 200 mg daily for 4 weeks. Finally, a single 200 mg dose of pramiconazole was administered to patients. This review also highlights key areas for consideration when designing future studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".