Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2005
Critical appraisal of reports on the treatment of perioral dermatitis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weber Klaus, Thurmayr Rudolf
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Presently, problems exist with the rationale of oral therapy and the nature and indication of topical and accompanying treatment of perioral dermatitis.
OBJECTIVE: Providing the basis to overcome these problems by a quality evaluation of treatment reports and assessment of the consistency of treatment experience.
METHODS: Sources were Medline (1964-2004), Embase (1966-2004), the Cochrane Central (1971-2004) and 526 references of 3 textbooks, 2 recent reviews and 30 papers on perioral dermatitis. Thirty English and German articles were selected. These studies were evaluated according to principles of evidence-based medicine and related criteria. Evaluation of 28 papers was carried out by the authors and of our own 2 papers by 2 other reviewers. Consistency of results was qualitatively assessed by the authors.
RESULTS: There were only 2 therapeutic trials of medium-range quality. The other studies were of low quality. Consistency was noted concerning treatment with oral tetracycline (with 1 exception), discontinuation of topical corticosteroids and cosmetics and, to a lesser extent, regarding no therapy. There was inconsistency in respect to topical therapy.
CONCLUSION: The presented data help to interpret and conduct studies on the treatment of perioral dermatitis.
OBJECTIVE: Providing the basis to overcome these problems by a quality evaluation of treatment reports and assessment of the consistency of treatment experience.
METHODS: Sources were Medline (1964-2004), Embase (1966-2004), the Cochrane Central (1971-2004) and 526 references of 3 textbooks, 2 recent reviews and 30 papers on perioral dermatitis. Thirty English and German articles were selected. These studies were evaluated according to principles of evidence-based medicine and related criteria. Evaluation of 28 papers was carried out by the authors and of our own 2 papers by 2 other reviewers. Consistency of results was qualitatively assessed by the authors.
RESULTS: There were only 2 therapeutic trials of medium-range quality. The other studies were of low quality. Consistency was noted concerning treatment with oral tetracycline (with 1 exception), discontinuation of topical corticosteroids and cosmetics and, to a lesser extent, regarding no therapy. There was inconsistency in respect to topical therapy.
CONCLUSION: The presented data help to interpret and conduct studies on the treatment of perioral dermatitis.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Administration, OralAdministration, TopicalAdultDermatitis, PerioralDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleEvaluation Studies as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMetronidazoleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSeverity of Illness IndexTetracyclineTreatment Outcome