Prevalence of ocular manifestations in cutaneous rosacea: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition with concomitant ocular manifestations and neurogenic symptoms. Ocular rosacea poses a particular diagnostic challenge as its signs and symptoms often overlap with other ocular pathologies. Cutaneous and ocular rosacea present together in approximately 21-50% of patients, yet a solid understanding of comorbid ocular and cutaneous symptoms is lacking. Therefore, the present paper outlines a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe and quantify the prevalence of ocular rosacea in cutaneous rosacea and each of its subtypes. Methods: This study will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and be conducted using the systematic review software, Covidence. To determine inclusion, screening will occur at two levels (title and abstract-only followed by full-text) and will be completed separately by two authors. Primary research studies on ocular rosacea in adult cutaneous rosacea published in all languages and geographic regions until November 2023 will be reviewed for inclusion. Data pertaining to overall prevalence of ocular rosacea across and within cutaneous rosacea subtypes, mean age, sex, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, time to diagnosis, time to treatment, and prevalence of comorbid conditions will be extracted. For each included study, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework will be applied to assess study quality. Conclusion: To the authors’ knowledge, this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the prevalence of ocular rosacea in the various cutaneous subtypes in an adult population. By addressing this knowledge gap, this study aims to provide clear and easily interpretable data to aid in the early diagnosis and treatment of ocular rosacea. This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID# CRD42023475026). Key Message Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the prevalence of ocular manifestations in adult rosacea
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 | 0.084 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.008 |
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".