ReviewJAAD international2025
The efficacy and safety of minocycline, metronidazole, ivermectin, and azelaic acid in moderate-to-severe papulopustular rosacea: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in JAAD international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of topical minocycline preparations for papulopustular rosacea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Could photobiomodulation be used for treatment of rosacea?Lasers in medical science · 2025Review
- Current Trends and Future Insights on Rosacea Treatment: A Bibliometric Analysis.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There are multiple topical agents for papulopustular rosacea (PPR), but the most effective for the management of moderate-to-severe PPR remains unknown. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of topical agents for moderate-to-severe PPR. Methods: Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched. The efficacy of topical agents was explored through frequentist network meta-analysis using random-effects model. Treatments were ranked using net rank function, yielding P scores. Results: Nineteen randomized control trials (RCTs) that enrolled and 8208 participants were deemed eligible. Azelaic acid 20% yielded the highest effect size (OR = 8.54, 95% CI: 2.48-29.45) and highest P-score (P score = 0.97) with respect to improvement in investigator global assessment (IGA) score. Azelaic acid 15%, Metronidazole 0.75%, and Ivermectin 1% yielded comparable effect sizes. Azelaic acid 15% yielded statistically significant odds ratio (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.30-2.93, P score = 0.14) for adverse events. Adverse event risk for other topical agents was not significant. Limitation: The sample size was limited for some of the topical agents. Also, many clinically important outcomes were overlooked by most of the included RCTs. Conclusion: Azelaic acid 20% was the most effective in improving IGA score for moderate-to-severe PPR and azelaic acid 15% as having the highest adverse event profile.
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.