Treatment of Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea With Collateral Puncture Therapy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR) is the most common subtype of rosacea, characterized by persistent facial erythema and telangiectasia of varying calibers. It causes significant aesthetic impairment and is often accompanied by uncomfortable symptoms, such as burning, stinging, dryness, and itching, profoundly affecting patients' quality of life. Intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy demonstrates notable improvement in persistent erythema and telangiectasia; however, it is associated with issues such as a prolonged treatment course and high costs. Collateral puncture therapy involves rapid puncturing of specific acupuncture points followed by gentle squeezing around the needle holes to induce minor bleeding. Previous studies have shown that collateral puncture therapy for ETR offers advantages such as rapid onset of effect, a simple procedure, and low cost. Nevertheless, more high-quality clinical research data are needed to confirm these findings. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to observe the clinical efficacy and safety of collateral puncture therapy in treating ETR. METHODS: This study enrolled 60 patients diagnosed with ETR. The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: one group underwent 4 sessions of collateral puncture therapy with 1-week intervals between treatments, and the other group received a single session of IPL therapy. The primary efficacy end points were the clinician's erythema assessment and the clinician's telangiectasia assessment. The secondary efficacy end points included the investigator's global assessment, patient's self-assessment, Flushing Assessment Tool results, Dermatology Life Quality Index, and Rosacea-specific Quality-of-Life instrument. The evaluation points were before treatment, immediately after treatment, and during follow-up. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS (version 25.0; IBM Corp) to compare intragroup and intergroup differences between the 2 sets of data before and after treatment, with a significance level of α=.05 for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: Recruitment began on June 1, 2023. All participants have been recruited. Data analysis will be complete by the end of August 2025, with study findings available by December 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study has the potential to verify the clinical efficacy and safety of collateral puncture therapy in the treatment of ETR, supplement rosacea treatment methods, standardize treatment protocols, and fill a current clinical gap in treating rosacea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200062639; https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=177100. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/59682.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".