Prevalence of ocular manifestations in cutaneous rosacea: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ocular rosacea (OR) is a rosacea subtype, typically presenting as dry eye, foreign body sensation, and photophobia. Prevalence estimates of OR in cutaneous rosacea (CR) range from 0.03% to 65%. This systematic review and meta-analysis consolidate the prevalence of diagnosed OR within CR and ocular involvement of CR. METHODS: Primary research studies reporting the prevalence of OR in adults with CR were eligible for inclusion. Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool for Prevalence Studies and a Peters' regression test assessed risk of bias. Results were analyzed through random intercept logistic regression models using R. Studies reporting diagnosed OR were analyzed separately from those reporting ocular involvement. RESULTS: 28 studies were identified, 11 reported on diagnosed OR, and 17 reported on ocular involvement in CR. Prevalence of diagnosed OR (N = 124 093) was 10.3%, whereas the prevalence of ocular involvement in CR (N = 1 747) was 44.3%. In diagnosed OR, publication year significantly contributed to variations in reported OR prevalence, with more recent studies reporting a lower prevalence of diagnosed OR compared to older studies. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the variability in reported prevalences of OR and ocular involvement in CR. This might be explained by a lack of clear guidelines on how to diagnose and refer patients with CR and co-occurring ocular signs and symptoms. Greater clinician awareness and clear referral guidelines are warranted.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".