Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 158

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 access
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·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjd.15173

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 158

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
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.