ReviewCureus2026
Targeting Neurovascular Inflammation in Rosacea: A Systematic Review of Botulinum Toxin Therapy.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis characterized by persistent erythema and episodic flushing, often associated with suboptimal treatment outcomes and frequent recurrence. Botulinum toxin has recently been proposed as a novel therapeutic modality in its management. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin in patients with rosacea. A comprehensive search of major electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies assessing its clinical application. Overall, the available literature suggests that botulinum toxin is associated with improvements in clinical signs and symptoms, particularly erythema, with effects sustained for a variable duration. Reported adverse events were predominantly mild and self-limiting. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity in study design, and relatively short follow-up periods. Further high-quality, standardized studies are required to better define its role in routine clinical practice.
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.