Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003262.pub4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interventions for rosacea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

3
175
0
23

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(201 citation statements)
references
References 118 publications
3
175
0
23
Order By: Relevance
“…According to van Zuuren et al, there is an urgent need for well-designed studies of several treatments on rosacea (1). Future trials should include HRQoL assessment as primary outcome (1).…”
Section: Future Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…According to van Zuuren et al, there is an urgent need for well-designed studies of several treatments on rosacea (1). Future trials should include HRQoL assessment as primary outcome (1).…”
Section: Future Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the 2011 update of the Cochrane Review of interventions for rosacea, HRQoL was considered to be the most important outcome parameter (1). In a number of studies, including clinical trials, the impact of rosacea on HRQoL has been described (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is important because a substantial placebo effect was found in rosacea trials of metronidazole cream. 2 Thus, the honey-specific effect size may have been overestimated in this study, although it was useful to find that participant-and investigator-assessed severity had similar degrees of variance.…”
Section: Topical Kanuka Honey For the Treatment Of Rosaceamentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Small trials are trickier to address. Time and time again, when systematic reviews of skin disease treatments are prepared by the Cochrane Collaboration, the same predictable results emerge-around 30 underpowered and highly heterogeneous RCTs, most of which are at high risk of bias because of unclear description of key elements such as randomization, blinding, and loss to follow-up (Whitton et al, 2010;van Zuuren et al, 2011). Typically, these reviews end up with that frustrating conclusion "insufficient evidence" or that vacuous phrase "more research is needed," which, although true, is of little use to clinicians.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%