This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Current Concepts and Therapy

Albert M. Kligman, MD, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 1997;133(1):89-90.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

AMONG DERMATOLOGISTS, ocular rosacea may be designated as an orphan disease. It generally goes unrecognized, undiagnosed, undertreated, and underreported.

Many years ago, Duke-Elder,¹ the doyen of academic ophthalmology, opined that ocular rosacea was a common disease but could offer no solid figures regarding its prevalence. Dermatologists and ophthalmologists record widely differing estimates. There are obvious reasons for these discrepancies. Dermatologists and ophthalmologists do not see the same patients; both suffer from monocular vision. Ophthalmologists focus on the eyes and dermatologists look at the skin. Systematic epidemiologic studies are totally lacking. Much disagreement would disappear if a dermatologist-ophthalmologist duo would combine to examine the same patients, recruited from their separate practices.

Then, too, the subjective symptoms of ocular rosacea, which are easily overlooked, are more common than the objective signs. They include nonspecific, rather common complaints, such as stinging, burning, tearing, photophobia, scratchiness, and feelings of foreign material in the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Department of Dermatology School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania 415 Curie Blvd 226 Clinical Research B1 Philadelphia, PA 19104

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?