Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16034895›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Interventions for rosacea.

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

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for rosacea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Rosacea: a review.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2009
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

E J van ZuurenDermatology department B1-Q, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinus dreef 2, Leiden, Netherlands, 2333 ZA. pijlzuur@xs4all.nl
M A Graber
S Hollis
M Chaudhry
A K Gupta
M Gover
University of Nottingham · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLMediprobe Research (Canada) · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules, and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often involved. Frequently it can be controlled, but it is not clear which treatments are most effective.

objectivesTo assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Skin Group Specialised Register (February 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2005), EMBASE (1980 to February 2005), BIOSIS (1970 to March 2002) and the Science Citation Index (1988 to February 2005). Reference lists of trials and key review articles were 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 authors 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 authors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. MAIN

resultsThe evidence provided by twenty-nine 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 were included. Pooled data from two trials involving 174 participants indicated that according to the participants, topical metronidazole is more effective than placebo (odds ratio (OR) 5.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95 to 12.06). Data pooled from three between-patient trials showed a clear improvement in the azelaic acid group; the rates of treatment success were approximately 70 to 80% versus 50% to 55% (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.28). A within-patient trial of azelaic cream versus placebo could not be pooled with the other three studies, but also showed good evidence of efficacy. Data pooled from three studies of oral tetracycline versus placebo involving 152 participants showed that, according to physicians, tetracycline was effective (OR 6.06, 95% CI 2.96 to 12.42). Some evidence of efficacy of oral metronidazole was provided by one small study. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe quality of studies evaluating rosacea treatments was generally poor. There is evidence that topical metronidazole and azelaic acid are effective. There is some evidence that oral metronidazole and tetracycline are effective. There is insufficient evidence concerning the effectiveness of other treatments. Good RCTs looking at these treatments are urgently needed.

Indexed as

Dermatologic AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRosaceaDermatologic Agents

Identifiers

PMID16034895
OpenAlexW4211191248

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.