The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interventions for rosacea
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common chronic skin condition affecting the face, characterised by flushing, redness, pimples, pustules and dilated blood vessels. The eyes are often involved and thickening of the skin with enlargement (phymas), especially of the nose, can occur in some people. A range of treatment options are available but it is unclear which are most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches, to July 2014, of: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Science Citation Index (from 1988). We searched five trials registers and checked reference lists for further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included 106 studies, comprising 13,631 participants. Sample sizes of 30-100 and study duration of two to three months were most common. More women than men were included, mean age of 48.6 years, and the majority had papulopustular rosacea, followed by erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.A wide range of comparisons (67) were evaluated. Topical interventions: metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin, brimonidine or other topical treatments. Systemic interventions: oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments, i.e. isotretinoin. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment.The majority of studies (57/106) were assessed as 'unclear risk of bias', 37 'high risk ' and 12 'low risk'. Twenty-two studies provided no usable or retrievable data i.e. none of our outcomes were addressed, no separate data reported for rosacea or limited data in abstracts.Eleven studies assessed our primary outcome 'change in quality of life', 52 studies participant-assessed changes in rosacea severity and almost all studies addressed adverse events, although often only limited data were provided. In most comparisons there were no statistically significant differences in number of adverse events, most were mild and transient. Physician assessments including investigators' global assessments, lesion counts and erythema were evaluated in three-quarters of the studies, but time needed for improvement and duration of remission were incompletely or not reported.The quality of the body of evidence was rated moderate to high for most outcomes, but for some outcomes low to very low.Data for several outcomes could only be pooled for topical metronidazole and azelaic acid. Both were shown to be more effective than placebo in papulopustular rosacea (moderate quality evidence for metronidazole and high for azelaic acid). Pooled data from physician assessments in three trials demonstrated that metronidazole was more effective compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 3.02). Four trials provided data on participants' assessments, illustrating that azelaic acid was more effective than placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.63). The results from three studies were contradictory on which of these two treatments was most effective.Two studies showed a statistically significant and clinically important improvement in favour of topical ivermectin when compared to placebo (high quality evidence). Participants' assessments in these studies showed a RR of 1.78 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.11) and RR of 1.92 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.32),which were supported by physicians' assessments. Topical ivermectin appeared to be slightly more effective than topical metronidazole for papulopustular rosacea, based on one study, for improving quality of life and participant and physician assessed outcomes (high quality evidence for these outcomes).Topical brimonidine in two studies was more effective than vehicle in reducing erythema in rosacea at all time points over 12 hours (high quality evidence). At three hours the participants' assessments had a RR of 2.21 (95% CI 1.52 to 3.22) and RR of 2.00 (95% CI 1.33 to 3.01) in favour of brimonidine. Physicians' assessments confirmed these data. There was no rebound or worsening of erythema after treatment cessation.Topical clindamycin phosphate combined with tretinoin was not considered to be effective compared to placebo (moderate quality evidence).Topical ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion demonstrated effectiveness and improved quality of life for people with ocular rosacea (low quality evidence).Of the comparisons assessing oral treatments for papulopustular rosacea there was moderate quality evidence that tetracycline was effective but this was based on two old studies of short duration. Physician-based assessments in two trials indicated that doxycycline appeared to be significantly more effective than placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.47 and RR 2.37,
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
A system for rating the stability and strength of medical evidence
Treadwell, J. R., Tregear, S. J., Reston, J. T., & Turkelson, C. M. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-52 · Cited by 93
Interventions for female pattern hair loss
van Zuuren, E. J., Fedorowicz, Z., Carter, B., Andriolo, R. B., & Schoones, J. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007628.pub3 · Cited by 64
Self-citationOral zinc sulfate in the treatment of rosacea: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Sharquie, K. E., Najim, R. A., & Al‐Salman, H. N. (2006) · International Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2006.02944.x · Cited by 59
Cited by
Schaller, M., Almeida, L. M. C., Bewley, A., Cribier, B., Del Rosso, J., Dlova, N. C., Gallo, R. L., Granstein, R. D., Kautz, G., Mannis, M. J., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.18420 · Cited by 253
Barraza, G. A., Castro-Guijarro, A. C., de la Fuente Hoffmann, V., Bolívar Ávila, S. J., Flamini, M. I., & Sanchez, A. M. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108988 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- van Zuuren, E. J., Fedorowicz, Z., Carter, B., van der Linden, M. M., & Charland, L.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-28
- Volume
- 2017
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- CD003262-CD003262
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W2160443131
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 29.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interventions for rosacea. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd003262.pub5
- The paper
- van Zuuren, E. J., Fedorowicz, Z., Carter, B., van der Linden, M. M., & Charland, L. (2015). Interventions for rosacea. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003262.pub5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.