Efficacy of treatments for rosacea in the pediatric population: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The prevalence of rosacea in the pediatric population is rare and treatment recommendations specific to the pediatric population are lacking. Our objective is to perform a systematic review of the published literature to identify treatments used for rosacea in the pediatric population (age <18 years) and describe their efficacy. Literature searches were performed in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and EBM Reviews. Data extraction included rosacea subtype, treatment regimen and clinical outcomes. Seventy‐six studies were included, reporting on a total of 389 patients. The most commonly reported treatments included erythromycin, metronidazole, azithromycin, tacrolimus/pimecrolimus and corticosteroids in topical formulations. Isotretinoin and physical treatment modalities were reported to be effective in treating severe recalcitrant cases of rosacea. In our review, we describe the most commonly reported therapies with demonstrated efficacy in treating pediatric rosacea. The evidence supports therapy with topical anti‐inflammatory options initially, with the addition of systemic antibiotics for cases refractory to topical monotherapy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".