The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rosacea treatment update: recommendations from the global ROS acea CO nsensus ( ROSCO ) panel
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Rosacea is currently treated according to subtypes. As this does not adequately address the spectrum of clinical presentation (phenotypes), it has implications for patient management. The ROSacea COnsensus panel was established to address this issue. OBJECTIVES: To incorporate current best treatment evidence with clinical experience from an international expert panel and establish consensus to improve outcomes for patients with rosacea. METHODS: Seventeen dermatologists and three ophthalmologists reached consensus on critical aspects of rosacea treatment and management using a modified Delphi approach. The panel voted on statements using the responses 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. All voting was electronic and blinded. RESULTS: The panel agreed on phenotype-based treatments for signs and symptoms presenting in individuals with rosacea. First-line treatments were identified for individual major features of transient and persistent erythema, inflammatory papules/pustules, telangiectasia and phyma, underpinned by general skincare measures. Multiple features in an individual patient can be simultaneously treated with multiple agents. If treatment is inadequate given appropriate duration, another first-line option or the addition of another first-line agent should be considered. Maintenance treatment depends on treatment modality and patient preferences. Ophthalmological referral for all but the mildest ocular features should be considered. Lid hygiene and artificial tears in addition to medications are used to treat ocular rosacea. CONCLUSIONS: Rosacea diagnosis and treatment should be based on clinical presentation. Consensus was achieved to support this approach for rosacea treatment strategies.
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
What is ‘quality of evidence’ and why is it important to clinicians?
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be · Cited by 3,250
Cited by
Rosacea: New Concepts in Classification and Treatment
van Zuuren, E. J., Arents, B. W. M., van der Linden, M. M. D., Vermeulen, S., Fedorowicz, Z., & Tan, J. (2021) · American Journal of Clinical Dermatology · doi:10.1007/s40257-021-00595-7 · Cited by 339
Self-citationSchaller, 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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schaller, M., Almeida, L. M. C., Bewley, A., Cribier, B., Dlova, N. C., Kautz, G., Mannis, M., Oon, H. H., Rajagopalan, M., Steinhoff, M., Thiboutot, D., Troielli, P., Webster, G., Wu, Y., Zuuren, E., & Tan, J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-02
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 465-471
- ISSN
- 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2133
- OpenAlex
- W2556344553
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Rosacea treatment update: recommendations from the global ROS acea CO nsensus ( ROSCO ) panel. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bjd.15173
- The paper
- Schaller, M., Almeida, L. M. C., Bewley, A., Cribier, B., Dlova, N. C., Kautz, G., Mannis, M., Oon, H. H., Rajagopalan, M., Steinhoff, M., Thiboutot, D., Troielli, P., Webster, G., Wu, Y., Zuuren, E., & Tan, J. (2017). Rosacea treatment update: recommendations from the global ROS acea CO nsensus ( ROSCO ) panel. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15173
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.