Interventions for rosacea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often also involved. The cause of rosacea is unclear. It is a chronic disease, which can be controlled in most cases with appropriate treatment. Numerous treatments are in use although it is unclear which are best, and which are most appropriate for the different types of rosacea. OBJECTIVES: To assess and summarise current evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Skin Group Specialised Trials Register (March 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, March 2002), MEDLINE (from 1966 to March 2002), EMBASE (from 1980 to March 2002), Biosis (from 1970 to March 2002) and the Science Citation Index (from 1988 to March 2002). Reference lists of trials and key review articles were also 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 reviewers 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 reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: The evidence provided by twenty-two 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 could be included. Pooled data from two trials involving 174 participants indicated that topical metronidazole is more effective than placebo (odds ratio 5.96, 95% confidence interval 2.95 to 12.06). Data from a between-patient trial (114 patients) and a within-patient trial (33 patients) of azelaic cream versus placebo were not pooled, but both showed good evidence of efficacy. Data pooled from three studies of oral tetracycline versus placebo involving 152 participants showed that, according to physicians' ratings, tetracycline was effective (odds ratio 6.06, 95% confidence interval 2.96 to 12.42). Some evidence of efficacy of oral metronidazole was provided by one small study. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The quality of studies evaluating rosacea treatments was generally poor. There is evidence that topical metronidazole and azelaic acid cream have a therapeutic effect. There is some evidence that oral metronidazole and tetracycline are effective. There is insufficient evidence concerning the effectiveness of other treatments. As many of these treatments are used for rosacea, good RCTs 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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.003 |
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".