Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14974010›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Interventions for rosacea.

E J van Zuuren, M A Graber, S Hollis, M Chaudhry, A K Gupta

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for rosacea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [Rosacea 2009 : new advances in pathophysiology, clinical staging and therapeutic strategies].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2009
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

E J van ZuurenMedicines Evaluation Board, Kalvermarkt 53, 2500 BE The Hague, the Netherlands. e.v.zuuren@cbg-meb.nl
M A Graber
S Hollis
M Chaudhry
A K Gupta
Lancaster University · GBMedicines Evaluation Board · NLMediprobe Research (Canada) · CAUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRosacea 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.

objectivesTo 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

resultsThe 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

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

HumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRosacea

Identifiers

PMID14974010
OpenAlexW4234772604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.