Interventions for rosacea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules, and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often involved. Frequently it can be controlled, but it is not clear which treatments are most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Skin Group Specialised Register (February 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2005), EMBASE (1980 to February 2005), BIOSIS (1970 to March 2002) and the Science Citation Index (1988 to February 2005). Reference lists of trials and key review articles were searched. Relevant manufacturers and experts were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea were included. Studies judged by the authors to have seriously flawed methodology were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, assessment of methodological quality, data extraction and analysis were carried out by two independent authors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. MAIN RESULTS: The evidence provided by twenty-nine included studies was generally weak because of poor methodology and reporting. One of our primary outcome measures, 'quality of life', was not assessed in any of the studies. Only two studies of ocular rosacea were included. Pooled data from two trials involving 174 participants indicated that according to the participants, topical metronidazole is more effective than placebo (odds ratio (OR) 5.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95 to 12.06). Data pooled from three between-patient trials showed a clear improvement in the azelaic acid group; the rates of treatment success were approximately 70 to 80% versus 50% to 55% (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.28). A within-patient trial of azelaic cream versus placebo could not be pooled with the other three studies, but also showed good evidence of efficacy. Data pooled from three studies of oral tetracycline versus placebo involving 152 participants showed that, according to physicians, tetracycline was effective (OR 6.06, 95% CI 2.96 to 12.42). Some evidence of efficacy of oral metronidazole was provided by one small study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of studies evaluating rosacea treatments was generally poor. There is evidence that topical metronidazole and azelaic acid are effective. There is some evidence that oral metronidazole and tetracycline are effective. There is insufficient evidence concerning the effectiveness of other treatments. Good RCTs looking at these treatments are urgently needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.004 |
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".