ReviewInternational journal of medical sciences2015
Major pathophysiological correlations of rosacea: a complete clinical appraisal.
Review in International journal of medical sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of intradermal botulinum toxin A for post-acne erythema: a split-face randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Trial
- The Role of Cosmetology in an Effective Treatment of Rosacea: A Narrative Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Review
- Relationships of Serum Homocysteine, Vitamin BBioMed research international · 2022Article
- Cutaneous and ocular rosacea: Common and specific physiopathogenic mechanisms and study models.Molecular vision · 2021Review
- The Pathogenic Role of Demodex Mites in Rosacea: A Potential Therapeutic Target Already in Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea?Dermatology and therapy · 2020Review
- Rosacea: Molecular Mechanisms and Management of a Chronic Cutaneous Inflammatory Condition.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Review
- ROSACEA IS ASSOCIATED WITH THYROID AUTOIMMUNITY: A CASE CONTROL STUDY.Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRosacea is a characteristic cutaneous disorder with a diverse clinical manifestations ranging from facial vascular hyper-reactivity to sebaceous gland hyperplasia. Many theories on pathophysiology of rosacea were proposed over the past decade, however the pathogenicity is poorly understood.
aimTo review the evidence on different pathophysiological correlations of rosacea.
methodsA literature search was conducted for studies published between 1990 to March 2014. The inclusion criteria was pathophysiology, randomized controlled trials, controlled trials on rosacea.
resultsOut of 5141 articles, 14 high quality studies met all the selection criteria. Of 14 articles, 5 are randomized control trials (RCTs), 2 are controlled trial, 3 comparative trials, 2 observational trials, 1 prospective and 1 diagnostic trial. The studies were categorized into two groups: the trigger factors and sub-types & symptoms. Of 7 high quality studies, 4 provided strong evidence that immune responses causing disease triggered by external/internal factors such as sunlight, food and chemical agents, 3 trials provided significant evidence of microorganisms as causative agents. The remaining trials did not provide significant evidences on pathophysiology.
conclusionVasculature, chronic inflammatory responses, environmental triggers, food and chemicals ingested and microorganisms either alone or in combination are responsible for rosacea. Many promising drugs are under various phases of clinical trials and interestingly, probiotics could also possibly be used as one of the treatment option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.