The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incidence and prevalence of rosacea: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The exact prevalence and incidence of rosacea remain unknown, although it is a common condition associated with severe noncutaneous diseases. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of the published literature to examine the global incidence and prevalence of rosacea. METHODS: A systematic review of population-based and dermatological outpatient studies reporting the incidence and/or prevalence of rosacea was performed using three electronic medical databases: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data were extracted and a proportion meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled proportions. RESULTS: In total 32 studies were included examining a total of 41 populations with 26 519 836 individuals. Twenty-two populations were from Europe, three from Africa, four from Asia, nine from North America and three from South America. The pooled proportion of individuals with rosacea was 5·46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4·91-6·04] in the general population and 2·39% (95% CI 1·56-3·39) among dermatological outpatients. Self-reported rosacea gave higher prevalence estimates than rosacea diagnosed by clinical examination, suggesting a low specificity of questionnaires based on symptoms. Rosacea affected both women (5·41%, 95% CI 3·85-7·23) and men (3·90%, 95% CI 3·04-4·87), and mostly those aged 45-60 years. CONCLUSIONS: We estimated the global prevalence of rosacea based on published data and found that 5·46% of the adult population is affected. However, the prevalence of rosacea depended on the diagnostic method, with higher estimates in questionnaire studies of rosacea symptoms and lower estimates in health registries with International Classification of Diseases codes.
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
Reitsma, M. B., Fullman, N., Ng, M., Salama, J. S., Abajobir, A., Abate, K. H., Abbafati, C., Abera, S. F., Abraham, B., Abyu, G. Y., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30819-x · Cited by 2,028
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
Deng, Z., Chen, M., Zhao, Z., Xiao, W., Liu, T., Peng, Q., Wu, Z., Xu, S., Shi, W., Jian, D., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39761-2 · Cited by 50
Chen, P., Yang, Z., Fan, Z., Wang, B., Tang, Y., Xiao, Y., Chen, X., Luo, D., Xiao, S., Li, J., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1096687 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Gether, L., Overgaard, L. K., Egeberg, A., & Thyssen, J. P.
- Venue
- British Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-05-31
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 282-289
- ISSN
- 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2790847525
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Incidence and prevalence of rosacea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bjd.16481
- The paper
- Gether, L., Overgaard, L. K., Egeberg, A., & Thyssen, J. P. (2018). Incidence and prevalence of rosacea: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16481
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.