Search

BackgroundRosacea is a common chronic facial dermatosis. Classification of rosacea has evolved from subtyping to phenotyping.ObjectivesUpdating our systematic review on interventions for rosacea. MethodsWe searched: CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index, and ongoing trials registers (March 2018) for randomised controlled trials. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors. GRADE was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe included 152 studies (46 were new), comprising 20,944 participants. Topical interventions included: brimonidine, oxymetazoline, metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin and other topical treatments. Systemic interventions included: oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment.We present the most current evidence for rosacea management based on a phenotype-led approach. ConclusionsFor reducing temporarily persistent erythema: there was high certainty evidence for topical brimonidine and moderate certainty for topical oxymetazoline; for erythema and mainly telangiectasia: low to moderate certainty evidence for laser and intense pulsed light therapy.For reducing papules/pustules: there was high certainty evidence for topical azelaic acid and topical ivermectin; moderate to high certainty evidence for doxycycline and isotretinoin; moderate certainty evidence for topical metronidazole, and topical minocycline and oral minocycline being equally effective as doxycycline 40 mg. There was low certainty evidence for tetracycline and low dose minocycline.For ocular rosacea, there was moderate certainty evidence that oral omega-3 fatty acids were effective and low certainty evidence for ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion and doxycycline.

Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-12T17:48:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-03-01 Made available in DSpace on 2013-09-30T18:32:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-03-01 Submitted by Vitor Silverio Rodrigues (vitorsrodrigues@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2014-05-20T13:46:26Z No. of bitstreams: 0 Made available in DSpace on 2014-05-20T13:46:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-03-01 Introduction: Open access publishing is becoming increasingly popular within the biomedical sciences. SciELO, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, is a digital library covering a selected collection of Brazilian scientific journals many of which provide open access to full-text articles. This library includes a number of dental journals some of which may include reports of clinical trials in English, Portuguese and/or Spanish. Thus, SciELO could play an important role as a source of evidence for dental healthcare interventions especially if it yields a sizeable number of high quality reports. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify reports of clinical trials by handsearching of dental journals that are accessible through SciELO, and to assess the overall quality of these reports. Material and methods: Electronic versions of six Brazilian dental Journals indexed in SciELO were handsearched at www.scielo.br in September 2008. Reports of clinical trials were identified and classified as controlled clinical trials (CCTs - prospective, experimental studies comparing 2 or more healthcare interventions in human beings) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs - a random allocation method is clearly reported), according to Cochrane eligibility criteria. Criteria to assess methodological quality included: method of randomization, concealment of treatment allocation, blinded outcome assessment, handling of withdrawals and losses and whether an intention-to-treat analysis had been carried out. Results: The search retrieved 33 CCTs and 43 RCTs. A majority of the reports provided no description of either the method of randomization (75.3%) or concealment of the allocation sequence (84.2%). Participants and outcome assessors were reported as blinded in only 31.2% of the reports. Withdrawals and losses were only clearly described in 6.5% of the reports and none mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis or any similar procedure. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that a substantial number of reports of trials and systematic reviews are available in the dental journals listed in SciELO, and that these could provide valuable evidence for clinical decision making. However, it is clear that the quality of a number of these reports is of some concern and that improvement in the conduct and reporting of these trials could be achieved if authors adhered to internationally accepted guidelines, e. g. the CONSORT statement. Univ São Paulo, Fac Odontol Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, BR-14040050 Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil São Paulo State Univ, Araraquara Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Araraquara, SP, Brazil Inst Qual & Efficiency Hlth Care, Dept Hlth Informat, Cologne, Germany Cochrane Collaborat, UK Cochrane Ctr, Bahrain Branch, Awali, Bahrain São Paulo State Univ, Araraquara Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Araraquara, SP, Brazil