Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31392722›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2020

Recommendations for rosacea diagnosis, classification and management: update from the global ROSacea COnsensus 2019 panel.

M Schaller, L M C Almeida, A Bewley, B Cribier, J Del Rosso, N C Dlova, R L Gallo, R D Granstein, G Kautz, M J Mannis and 11 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 114 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT06307288 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of Tranilast Combined With Minocycline in the Treatment of Rosacea

TypeinterventionalSponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled45ConditionsRosaceaArmsminocycline, tranilast
NCT07521462 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Using a Dermocosmetic Product as Monotherapy or as an Adjunct to Laser Treatment on Redness Associated With Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea: a Comparative Study Versus Placebo.

TypeinterventionalSponsorISISPHARMARan2026 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsRosacea, Erythematotelangiectatic, Rosacea Subtype 1 (Erythematotelangiectatic)ArmsDermocosmetic tested product, Placebo, Vascular laser treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

114 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 225 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. National Delphi consensus on laser and energy-based treatments for rosacea.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Laser and energy-based devices for treating rosacea - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Molecular Mechanisms in the Etiopathology of Rosacea-Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. [Rosacea-the updated S2k guideline].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Guideline
  7. Preferred practice patterns and review on rosacea.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
    Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Effectiveness and Safety of a Moisturizer Containing Centella Asiatica Extract, Ceramide NP, and Panthenol for Erythema and Skin Barrier in Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea: A Randomized Controlled Trial Study.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2026
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. The Latest Advances in Rosacea Treatment: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 19 institutions in 13 countries.

M SchallerDepartment of Dermatology, Universitatsklinikum Tubingen, Tubingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7930-1919
L M C AlmeidaFaculdade de Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
A BewleyDepartment of Dermatology, Barts Health (Royal London and Whipps Cross University Hospitals), London, U.K.
B CribierDepartment of Dermatology, Hopitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, Alsace, France.
J Del RossoJDR Dermatology Research and Thomas Dermatology, Las Vegas, NV, U.S.A.
N C DlovaDepartment of Dermatology, University of KwaZulu-Natal College of Health Sciences, Durban, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-2425-3905
R L GalloDepartment of Dermatology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, U.S.A.
R D GransteinDepartment of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, U.S.A.
G KautzHaut- und Laserklinik, Konz, Germany.
M J MannisDepartment of Ophthalmology & Vision Science, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, U.S.A.
G MicaliDermatology Clinic, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
H H OonNational Skin Centre, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-7607-3124
M RajagopalanApollo Hospitals Enterprise, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
M SteinhoffDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology and Translational Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
E TanghettiCenter for Dermatology and Laser Surgery, Sacramento, CA, U.S.A.
D ThiboutotDepartment of Dermatology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, U.S.A.
P TroielliFaculty of Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
G WebsterDepartment of Dermatology and Cutaneous Biology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
M ZierhutCentre for Ophthalmology, University Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
E J van ZuurenDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4780-0182
J TanWindsor Clinical Research Inc and Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, Windsor, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9624-4530
Cornell University · USThomas Jefferson University · USApollo Hospitals · INCenter for Dermatology and Laser Surgery · USFaculdade de Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais · BRHaut- und Lasercentrum Potsdam · DEHôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg · FRLeiden University Medical Center · NLNational Skin Centre · SGPennsylvania State University · USSTZ eyetrial · DEUniversidad de Buenos Aires · ARUniversitätsklinikum Tübingen · DEUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Catania · ITUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZAWestern University · CAWhipps Cross University Hospital · GB

Funding

Galderma
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA transition from a subtyping to a phenotyping approach in rosacea is underway, allowing individual patient management according to presenting features instead of categorization by predefined subtypes. The ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) 2017 recommendations further support this transition and align with guidance from other working groups.

objectivesTo update and extend previous global ROSCO recommendations in line with the latest research and continue supporting uptake of the phenotype approach in rosacea through clinical tool development.

methodsNineteen dermatologists and two ophthalmologists used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements pertaining to critical aspects of rosacea diagnosis, classification and management. Voting was electronic and blinded.

resultsDelphi statements on which the panel achieved consensus of ≥ 75% voting 'Agree' or 'Strongly agree' are presented. The panel recommends discussing disease burden with patients during consultations, using four questions to assist conversations. The primary treatment objective should be achievement of complete clearance, owing to previously established clinical benefits for patients. Cutaneous and ocular features are defined. Treatments have been reassessed in line with recent evidence and the prior treatment algorithm updated. Combination therapy is recommended to benefit patients with multiple features. Ongoing monitoring and dialogue should take place between physician and patients, covering defined factors to maximize outcomes. A prototype clinical tool (Rosacea Tracker) and patient case studies have been developed from consensus statements.

conclusionsThe current survey updates previous recommendations as a basis for local guideline development and provides clinical tools to facilitate a phenotype approach in practice and improve rosacea patient management. What's already known about this topic? A transition to a phenotype approach in rosacea is underway and is being recommended by multiple working groups. New research has become available since the previous ROSCO consensus, necessitating an update and extension of recommendations. What does this study add? We offer updated global recommendations for clinical practice that account for recent research, to continue supporting the transition to a phenotype approach in rosacea. We present prototype clinical tools to facilitate use of the phenotype approach in practice and improve management of patients with rosacea.

Indexed as

OphthalmologistsRosaceaCombined Modality TherapyCost of IllnessHumans

Identifiers

PMID31392722
PMCPMC7317217
OpenAlexW2967093367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.