{"id":268,"date":"2022-11-15T20:33:56","date_gmt":"2022-11-15T20:33:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/facedoctorsoaps.com\/?p=268"},"modified":"2022-11-15T20:35:57","modified_gmt":"2022-11-15T20:35:57","slug":"a-meta-analysis-of-association-between-acne-ulgaris-and-demodex-infestation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/2022\/11\/15\/a-meta-analysis-of-association-between-acne-ulgaris-and-demodex-infestation\/","title":{"rendered":"A Meta-Analysis of Association Between Acne Ulgaris and Demodex Infestation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Ya-e Zhao,\u2020<\/sup> Li Hu, Li-ping Wu, and  Jun-xian Ma<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until now, etiology of acne vulgaris is still uncertain. Although clinicians usually deny the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris, it has been proved in some clinical practices. To confirm the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris, a meta-analysis was conducted. Predefined selection criteria were applied to search all published papers that analyzed the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris (January 1950 to August 2011) in ISI Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on fixed effects models or random effects models. We enrolled the 60 Chinese and 3 English papers in this meta-analysis, which covered Turkey and 25 different provinces\/municipalities in China and 42 130 participants including students and residents, aged from 1 to 78 years. The pooled OR in random effects models is 2.80 (95% CI, 2.34\u20133.36). Stability is robust according to sensitivity analysis. The fail-safe number is 18 477, suggesting that at least 18 477 articles with negative conclusions would be needed to reverse the conclusion that acne vulgaris was related to Demodex<\/em> infestation. So the effect of publication bias was insignificant and could be ignored. It was concluded that acne vulgaris is associated with Demodex<\/em> infestation. This indicates that when regular treatments for acne vulgaris are ineffective, examination of Demodex<\/em> mites and necessary acaricidal therapies should be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords: <\/strong>Demodex<\/em> infestation, Acne vulgaris, Case-control study, Meta-analysis<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.\u2003INTRODUCTION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Demodex<\/em> species are microscopic, obligate, elongated mites belonging to the family Demodicidae of the order Acari of the class Arachnida. Demodex folliculorum<\/em> and Demodex brevis<\/em> are found parasitizing on the human body surface. D. folliculorum<\/em> occupies the hair follicles, upper sebaceous glands level, whilst D. brevis<\/em> exists principally in the depth of sebaceous glands. Human nose, cheeks, forehead, temples, chin, external ear tract, scalp, eyelid, and upper part of the chest are the predilection sites, where large and numerous sebaceous glands provide a favorable habitat for the mites. Though the pathogenicity of Demodex<\/em> mites is still debatable, more and more case-control studies showed that the multiplication of the mites is usually considered as a cause of multiple skin disorders. They have been reported to be involved in pityriasis folliculorum (Ayres, 1930<\/a>), rosacea (Ayres and Ayres, 1961<\/a>; Bonnar et al., 1993<\/a>; Forton and Seys, 1993<\/a>), pustular folliculitis (Dong and Duncan, 2006<\/a>), papulopustular scalp eruptions (Purcell et al., 1986<\/a>), perioral dermatitis (Hsu et al., 2009<\/a>), and blepharitis (Post and Juhlin, 1963<\/a>; Divani et al., 2009<\/a>; Zhao et al., 2012<\/a>). It is also suspected that Demodex<\/em> infestation may be one of the triggering factors of carcinogenesis in eyelid basal cell carcinomas (Erbagci et al., 2003<\/a>) and sebaceous adenoma (Dhingra et al., 2009<\/a>). Moreover, the infestation rate in the immunocompromised population with leucocythemia (Damian and Rogers, 2003<\/a>) or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (Clyti et al., 2005<\/a>) is remarkably high and pustular eruption or seborrheic dermatitis becomes even more conspicuous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the association between above-mentioned skin disorders and Demodex<\/em> infestation has been reported, clinical doctors usually deny the association between acne vulgaris and Demodex<\/em> infestation, because of the high prevalence of Demodex<\/em> in the common population. At present, since Demodex<\/em> is a host-specific obligate parasite, and presently cannot be cultured in vitro so as to parasitize and further cause infection in other healthy animal hosts (Zhao et al., 2009<\/a>; 2011c<\/a>), the direct absolute proof of the causal relationship has not yet been established. Therefore, in order to clarify the disputable association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and the development of acne vulgaris, we investigated the Chinese- and English-language case-control studies on the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris that we sifted from certain databases by using the statistical method of meta-analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.\u2003MATERIALS AND METHODS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

2.1. Data sources<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We searched in August 2011 for all case-control studies that analyzed the association between Demodex<\/em>infestation and acne vulgaris, which were published after January 1950, in two English databases and one Chinese database: Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge (including Science Citation Index (SCI), Index to Scientific & Technical Proceedings (ISTP), Journal Citation Reports (JCR), BIOSIS Previews (BP), Information Services for Physics, Electronic Computer (INSPEC), and Derwent Innovations Index (DII)), MEDLINE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The search terms used were \u201cDemodex<\/em>\u201d. The selected articles were scanned for potentially relevant articles. The inclusion and exclusion of articles were processed by two researchers (Li HU and Li-ping WU) based on the same criteria. For disputed articles, a third researcher (Ya-e ZHAO) mediated whether or not to include.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.2. Data inclusion and exclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We evaluated each study to determine whether to include it or not based on the following criteria: (1) studies with \u201cinfection\/infestation rate\u201d as the study parameter; (2) studies with appropriate detection methods, including skin surface biopsy (SSB), cellophane tape preparation (CTP) method, and skin pressurization method (SPM); (3) studies with clearly and accurately reported data so that 2\u00d72 table in \u03c7<\/em> 2<\/sup>test could be obtained or calculated. Papers that appeared in multiple databases were counted only once. Reviews, systematic evaluations, studies without controls, studies which did not provide sources of cases and controls, and republished papers were excluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.3. Data analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

For each study, multiple 2\u00d72 tables were constructed, and \u03c7<\/em> 2<\/sup> test was applied to compare Demodex<\/em>infestation rate of cases and controls. Raw data from all the studies were pooled to establish a database, and the data were double-checked. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (version 4.2 for Windows, Oxford England, the Cochrane Collaboration, in 2002) to assess the relationship between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random and fixed effects models, then forest plots were drawn and sensitivity and publication bias of studies were assessed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.4. Sensitivity analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We compared the pooled effect sizes (1) with different statistical models, (2) of studies using the CTP, SPM, or both two methods, and (3) before and after excluding studies with small sample size, to identify the sensitivity of the studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.5. Publication bias identification<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Publication bias is usually assessed in two ways. The funnel plot is used for qualitative study and the equation of fail-safe number for quantitative study. When there is no heterogeneity among the sifted studies, both methods are suitable to assess publication bias, whilst when heterogeneity is significant amongst the data, only equation of fail-safe number can be applied to perform quantitative analysis. Publication bias is identified according to Rosenthal (1979<\/a>), who referred to 5K<\/em>+10 (K<\/em> is the number of papers included) as a parameter in file-drawer problem. When compared to 5K<\/em>+10, the larger m<\/em> is (m<\/em> is the least number of unpublished studies that could make pooled effect size to have no statistical significance), the less effect publication bias has on statistical results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.\u2003RESULTS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

3.1. Overall information<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Initial searches identified 1 455 English papers (929 in ISI Web of Knowledge and 526 in MEDLINE) and 1 207 Chinese papers. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned above, 60 Chinese papers covering 25 provinces\/municipalities and only 3 English papers (Baysal et al., 1997<\/a>; Zhao et al., 2011a<\/a>; 2011b<\/a>) were eligible, which consisted of 42 130 subjects in total including students and residents, aged from 1 to 78 years. Most of the subjects were university and middle school students who were prone to acne vulgaris in the age of 11 to 25 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.2. Meta-analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In single \u03c7<\/em> 2<\/sup> test, 48 of the included 63 papers (Fig. \u200b(Fig.1)1<\/a>) concluded positive association, whilst the other 15 papers found no association (Peng et al., 1983<\/a>; Zhang J.S. et al., 1985<\/a>; Xing et al., 1988<\/a>; Li, 1990<\/a>; Li et al., 1991<\/a>; Chen X.N. et al., 1996<\/a>; Lin, 1996<\/a>; Tu\u2019er et al., 1997<\/a>; Zhan et al., 1997<\/a>; Yang X.H. et al., 2001<\/a>; Fang et al., 2003<\/a>; Chen X.Y. et al., 2004<\/a>; Chen J.F. et al., 2006<\/a>; Liu and Li, 2006<\/a>; Zhang H.Y. et al., 2007<\/a>). Total infestation rate of Demodex<\/em> mites was 51.85% (5587\/10776) in acne patients, obviously higher than 31.54% (9888\/31354) in the controls (\u03c7<\/em> 2<\/sup>=1 423.49, P<\/em><0.00). Heterogeneity was significant among the 63 studies (\u03c7<\/em> 2<\/sup>=519.09, P<\/em><0.01). Therefore, random effects model was applied to analyze the pooled data. The pooled OR was 2.80 (95% CI, 2.34\u20123.36). The hypothesis test of pooled effect size (P<\/em><0.05) showed that the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and the development of acne vulgaris was statistically significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fig. 1<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forest plot of the 63 included studies about the association between Demodex<\/em> and acne vulgaris<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.3. Sensitivity analysis<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As is shown in Figs. \u200bFigs.11<\/a>\u20125<\/a>, the pooled OR was 2.80 (95% CI, 2.34\u20123.36) in random effects model, and 2.84 (95% CI, 2.68\u20123.01) in fixed effects model. The ORs of studies using the CTP, studies using SPM, and the studies using both methods were 2.95 (95% CI, 2.32\u20123.75), 2.35 (95% CI, 1.37\u20124.01), and 2.80 (95% CI, 2.05\u20123.83), respectively. Six papers (Zhang J.S. et al., 1985<\/a>; Li, 1990<\/a>; Chen Y.G. et al., 1995<\/a>; Zhang M.H. et al., 2005<\/a>; Liu and Li, 2006<\/a>; Zhang H.Y. et al., 2007<\/a>) of the 63 included studies had sample size smaller than 40. After these articles were excluded, the pooled OR of the remaining ones was 2.84 (95% CI, 2.36\u20123.42). No significant difference was found amongst all these pooled ORs. So sensitivity analysis was robust, revealing that the association existed consistently between Demodex<\/em> infestation and the development of acne vulgaris.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fig. 5<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forest plot of 13 studies about the association between Demodex<\/em> and acne vulgaris using both the cellophane tape preparation method and skin pressurization method<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fig. 2<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forest plot of 57 studies with large sample size about the association between Demodex<\/em> and acne vulgaris<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fig. 3<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forest plot of 36 studies about the association between Demodex<\/em> and acne vulgaris using the cellophane tape preparation method<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"An<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fig. 4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Forest plot of 13 studies about the association between Demodex<\/em> and acne vulgaris using skin pressurization method<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.4. Publication bias identification<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In this study, since significant heterogeneity existed among the 63 included papers (\u03c7<\/em> 2<\/sup>=519.09, P<\/em><0.01), fail-safe number formulas were used to perform the quantitative analysis of publication bias. The fail-safe number was 18 477, which was significantly larger than 5K<\/em>+10=325, suggesting that at least 18 477 articles with negative conclusions would be needed to reverse the conclusion that acne vulgaris was related to Demodex<\/em> infestation. Therefore, the effect of publication bias was insignificant and could be ignored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.\u2003DISCUSSION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Albeit Demodex<\/em> infestation as a risk factor for rosacea has been confirmed recently (Zhao et al., 2010<\/a>), the association between acne vulgaris and Demodex<\/em> infestation has not. Acne vulgaris is different from rosacea. They are two distinct pathologies, with different symptoms, physiopathologies, causes, and treatments. Acne vulgaris is a multifactorial disease, originating in the pilosebaceous unit. The main symptoms include the microcomedone, comedone, papules, pustules, nodus, cyst, and scar. Thus, according to the type and the severity of clinical lesions, acne can be divided into comedonal acne, papulopustular acne, and nodular acne. Acne can also be classified, according to the age of onset, such as neonatal acne, infantile acne, pubertal acne, and adult acne. However, until now, the etiology of acne vulgaris is still uncertain. It is currently considered as related to factors such as androgen, increasing sebum secretion, dyskeratosis of pilosebaceous duct, follicular orifice block up, proliferation of Propionibacterium acnes<\/em>, or heredity. In recent decades, more and more clinical case-control studies have reported that Demodex<\/em>infestation is associated with acne vulgaris, albeit much controversy persists. In the study, 48 of the included 63 papers concluded positive association, while the rest 15 papers found no association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In spite of the significant heterogeneity among the 63 included Chinese- and English-language papers (\u03c7<\/em>2<\/sup>=519.09, P<\/em><0.01), the results of meta-analysis demonstrated statistical association between Demodex<\/em>infestation and acne vulgaris, with pooled OR 2.80 (95% CI, 2.34\u20123.36). The sensitivity analysis is robust. The conclusion will not be overthrown until it includes 18 477 articles with negative results. Also, the detection methods we applied in the present study, namely the CTP and SPM, were the same as those used in our previous study on the association between rosacea and Demodex<\/em> infestation (Zhao et al., 2010<\/a>). In the study about rosacea, the analysis results obtained from different detection methods [standardized SSB (Forton and Seys, 1993<\/a>; Hsu et al., 2009<\/a>), skin biopsy (Moravvej et al., 2007<\/a>; Hsu et al., 2009<\/a>), CTP (Yao, 2005<\/a>; Di et al., 2007<\/a>), and SPM (Wang and Zhang, 2006<\/a>; Cao Y.S. et al., 2009<\/a>)] were identical. Therefore, we argue that the conclusion of our present study and the included 63 papers, where CTP and pressurization methods were used, would be reliable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The heterogeneity arose due to differences across studies in sample size, design or conduct, geographic region, population characteristics, and sensitivity of detection methods. Of the 63 included articles, 15 concluded no association for two possible reasons. The first one might be sample bias. In the 15 studies, 4 had sample size smaller than 40 (Zhang J.S. et al., 1985<\/a>; Li, 1990<\/a>; Liu and Li, 2006<\/a>; Zhang H.Y. et al., 2007<\/a>), and 7 had unmatched sample size in patient and control (Peng et al., 1983<\/a>; Xing et al., 1988<\/a>; Li et al., 1991<\/a>; Tu\u2019er et al., 1997<\/a>; Yang X.H. et al., 2001<\/a>; Chen X.Y. et al., 2004<\/a>; Chen J.F. et al., 2006<\/a>), leading to significant statistical bias. The second one might be the inadequate use of detection methods. Two of them did not apply CTP in the cheeks, but only in the nasal ala which is not flat, leading to low detection rate and missed diagnosis (Zhan et al., 1997<\/a>; Fang et al., 2003<\/a>). No obvious reason was found in the other two (Chen X.N. et al., 1996<\/a>; Lin, 1996<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demodex<\/em> mites have been considered to be possibly related to many kinds of facial dermatoses. However, its role as a risk factor has only recently been confirmed in rosacea (Zhao et al., 2010<\/a>). In the present study, based on the results we have obtained, we may conclude that acne vulgaris is also significantly related to Demodex<\/em> infestation. However, it is not related as closely to Demodex<\/em> infestation (OR 2.80, 95% CI, 2.34\u20123.36) as rosacea is (OR 7.57, 95% CI, 5.39\u201210.62). The possible reason is that age of onset in acne vulgaris is younger than that in rosacea, which is in negative correlation with that Demodex<\/em> infestation rises with age (Divani et al., 2009<\/a>; Zhao et al., 2011a<\/a>). On the one hand, in acne vulgaris, as adolescents gradually age, they secrete androgen, and their sebaceous glands mature, resulting in pubertal acne. At the same time, mature sebaceous glands may increase the chances of Demodex<\/em> infestation. The damage in the hair follicles and sebaceous glands caused by multiplication of Demodex<\/em> mites overlaps with pubertal acne and then could aggravate the symptoms. Conversely, Demodex<\/em> infestation may play a direct pathogenic role in adult acne-like demodicosis. The causative factors of pubertal acne (e.g., excess androgen secretion) are no longer present in the adults. The direct damage of hair follicles and sebaceous glands caused by excess Demodex<\/em> infestation should be one reason of adult acne-like demodicosis. Here, it is worth explaining that dermatologists in China mainland rarely put the diagnosis of demodicosis in their practice, and probably the demodicoses or demodicoses with dermatoses simultaneously are today often misdiagnosed as acne (and other facial dermatoses).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although clinicians usually deny the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris, the association between acne-like demodicosis and Demodex<\/em> infestation has been proved in some clinical practices. Yuan et al. (2003<\/a>) conducted a single-blind and controlled clinical trial with 100 acne-like demodicidosis cases (\u22655 mites\/cm2<\/sup>) to explore the acaricidal effect of volatile oil of Chinese Zanthoxylum bungeanum<\/em>. The experimental group was treated with the cream made from the volatile oil of Chinese Z. bungeanum<\/em> and the control group with the generally used acaricidal medicine in China, new Fumanling cream, main compositions of which are Gynocardia odorata<\/em>, stemona root, fructus, hairyvein agrimonia herb, Ammi majus<\/em>, arilin, etc. Before treatment, the amounts of inflammatory skin lesions in the two groups were 24.6\u00b17.6 and 24.8\u00b17.7, respectively, and Demodex<\/em> densities were (12.8\u00b13.9) and (12.9\u00b13.9) mites\/cm2<\/sup>, respectively. Differences between the two groups were insignificant (P<\/em>>0.05). After six weeks\u2019 treatment, the amounts of inflammatory skin lesions decreased to 4.3\u00b12.6 and 6.8\u00b13.3, respectively, and Demodex<\/em> densities decreased to (1.2\u00b11.0) and (2.2\u00b11.3) mites\/cm2<\/sup>, respectively. There were significant differences between pre-treatment and post-treatment patients and between treatment and control groups after the treatment. It suggested that the Demodex<\/em> density played an important role in demodicosis. Also the decrease in Demodex<\/em> density and alleviation in clinical symptoms after acaricidal treatments provided indirect proof of association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne-like demodicosis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acne vulgaris can affect every age group. It manifests several similar symptoms to demodicidosis, including papules, pustules, etc. This leads to the indeterminateness in clinical diagnosis of acne vulgaris and the difficulty in differential diagnosis. Only if excess Demodex<\/em> was detected could we associate the lesions with Demodex<\/em>. In the present study, although we included and analyzed 63 papers about the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris, only 3 English papers (Baysal et al., 1997<\/a>; Zhao et al., 2011a<\/a>; 2011b<\/a>) matched the inclusion criteria. Also only one study we could searched used SSB method (Okyay et al., 2006<\/a>), and it did not match the inclusion criteria. The pervasiveness of the results and conclusions was impaired because of the scarcity of English articles. More convincing association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and acne vulgaris might be obtained by future studies, in which standard skin surface biopsy (SSSB) is used to measure the mites density (Forton, 2007<\/a>), and a large sample controlled study is conducted to observe the different Demodex<\/em> density between acne vulgaris patients and control patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

FOOTNOTES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

*<\/sup>Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 30872199) and the Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (No. 2006C2<\/sub>47), China<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

1. Ayres S., Jr Pityriasis folliculorum (Demodex<\/em>) Arch Derm Syphilol. <\/em>1930;21<\/strong>(1):19\u201324. doi: 10.1001\/archderm.1930.01440070027002. [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Ayres S, Jr, Ayres S., III Demodectic eruptions (demodicidosis) in the human. Arch Dermatol. <\/em>1961;83<\/strong>(5):816\u2013827. doi: 10.1001\/archderm.1961.01580110104016. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Baysal V, Aydemir M, Yorgancigil B, Yildirim M. The role of Demodexes<\/em> on etiology and pathogenesis of acne vulgaris. Turkiye Parazitol Derg. <\/em>1997;21<\/strong>:265\u2013268. (in Turkish) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Bonnar E, Eustace P, Powell FC. The Demodex<\/em> mites population in rosacea. J Am Acad Dermatol. <\/em>1993;28<\/strong>(3):443\u2013448. doi: 10.1016\/0190-9622(93)70065-2. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Cao GL, Huang Z, Liu YB. Investigation in infections rate of follicle mite in some medical students in Ganzhou. J Gannan Med Coll. <\/em>2005;25<\/strong>(5):596\u2013597. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Cao YS, You QX, Wang L, Lan HB, Xu J, Zhang XH, Yang H, Xiong YJ, Tian XF. Facial Demodex<\/em> infection among college students in Tangshan. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. <\/em>2009;27<\/strong>(3):271\u2013273. (in Chinese) [PubMed<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Chen JF, Chen Y, Yan DD, Guo XR, Yang HD, Niu B, Du FX. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in undergraduates. Acta Baotou Med Coll. <\/em>2006;22<\/strong>(2):135\u2013136. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

8. Chen LQ, Long B, Wan QH, Huang XG, Liu H, He LF, Zhou BY. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in students of a university. Lab Med Clin. <\/em>2008;5<\/strong>(20):1246\u20131248. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9. Chen XC, Liu JH, Su LY, Li YH. Investigation on the Demodex<\/em> infection among college students. J Taishan Med Coll. <\/em>1993;14<\/strong>(4):272\u2013275. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

10. Chen XN, Zhao XJ, Yan Y. Study on face infection caused by Demodex folliculorum<\/em> and epidemic factors in 444 college students. J Chengde Med Coll. <\/em>1996;13<\/strong>(1):13\u201315. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

11. Chen XY, Shen HX, Li XM, Lin WY, Li GP, Ruan YF, Wang XY, Cai CT. The investigation of human follicle mite infection in college students. J Trop Med. <\/em>2004;4<\/strong>(4):401\u2013403. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12. Chen YG, Yang ZM, Chen DF. Primary investigation of facial Demodex<\/em> infection. J Hainan Univ. <\/em>1995;13<\/strong>(2):145\u2013147.(in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

13. Clyti E, Sayavong K, Chanthavisouk K. Demodecidosis in a patient infected by HIV: successful treatment with ivermectin. Ann Dermatol Venereol. <\/em>2005;132<\/strong>(5):459\u2013461. doi: 10.1016\/S0151-9638(05)79308-X. (in French) [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14. Damian D, Rogers M. Demodex<\/em> infestation in a child with leukaemia: treatment with ivermectin and permethrin. Int J Dermatol. <\/em>2003;42<\/strong>(9):724\u2013726. doi: 10.1046\/j.1365-4362.2003.01916.x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15. Dhingra KK, Saroha V, Gupta P, Khurana N. Demodex<\/em>-associated dermatologic conditions\u2014a coincidence or an etiological correlate. Review with a report of a rare case of sebaceous adenoma. Pathol Res Pract. <\/em>2009;205<\/strong>(6):423\u2013426. doi: 10.1016\/j.prp.2008.11.013. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

16. Di BH, Li X, Li CY. Investigation and analysis of Demodex<\/em> infection in Tianjin undergraduate students. Chin J Health Lab Technol. <\/em>2007;17<\/strong>(7):1279, 1313. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

17. Divani S, Barpakis K, Kapsalas D. Chronic blepharitis caused by Demodex folliculorum<\/em> mites. Cytopathology. <\/em>2009;20<\/strong>(5):343\u2013344. doi: 10.1111\/j.1365-2303.2009.00639.x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18. Dong HJ, Duncan LD. Cytologic findings in Demodex<\/em> folliculitis: a case report and review of the literature. Diagn Cytopathol. <\/em>2006;34<\/strong>(3):232\u2013234. doi: 10.1002\/dc.20426. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

19. Du LY, Zhao L, Chen XN, Mi SB. Investigation and analysis of Demodex<\/em> infection in undergraduate medical students. Chin J Health Stat. <\/em>2006;23<\/strong>(6):532\u2013533. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20. Erbagci Z, Erbagci I, Erkili\u00e7 S. High incidence of demodicidosis in eyelid basal cell carcinomas. Int J Dermatol. <\/em>2003;42<\/strong>(7):567\u2013571. doi: 10.1046\/j.1365-4362.2003.01928.x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

21. Fang F, Xiao XL, Zeng YW, Ding S. The influence of occupation and air-condition on Demodex<\/em> infection. Guangzhou Med J. <\/em>2003;34<\/strong>(5):59\u201360. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

22. Forton F. Standardized skin surface biopsy: method to estimate the Demodex folliculorum<\/em> density, not to study the Demodex folliculorum<\/em> prevalence. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. <\/em>2007;21<\/strong>(9):1301\u20131302. doi: 10.1111\/j.1468-3083.2007.02455.x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

23. Forton F, Seys B. Density of Demodex folliculorum<\/em> in rosacea: a case-control study using standardized skin-surface biopsy. Br J Dermatol. <\/em>1993;128<\/strong>(6):650\u2013659. doi: 10.1111\/j.1365-2133.1993.tb00261.x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

24. Guo EP, Wang SL, Wang Y, Wang JY. Demodex<\/em> infection of college students in Yunyang Medical College. Chin J Sch Health. <\/em>2005;26<\/strong>(6):469\u2013470. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

25. Han J, Tao HZ. Epidemiological investigation on human Demodex<\/em> infection. Guizhou Med J. <\/em>1988;12<\/strong>(4):234\u2013236.[Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

26. Han WB. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infestation in military academy students and analysis of mitecide effectiveness with sulphur soap. Clin J Med Offic. <\/em>1994;22<\/strong>(3):9\u201310. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

27. He X, Chen YZ, Wu SY, Zhang CF, Wang QH, Pan LL. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in students of Fujian Medical University. Strait J Prev Med. <\/em>2009;15<\/strong>(1):39\u201340. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

28. Hsu CK, Hsu MM, Lee JY. Demodicosis: a clinicopathological study. J Am Acad Dermatol. <\/em>2009;60<\/strong>(3):453\u2013462. doi: 10.1016\/j.jaad.2008.10.058. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

29. Hu SF, Xia H, Yang YR, Zhao YX, Liu JR. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in Bozhou secondery school students. J Bengbu Med Coll. <\/em>1995;20<\/strong>(1):55. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

30. Ji YL, Zhou XY, Tang XY, Zhang HJ, Zhao DF, Guan MS. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in medical students. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. <\/em>2003;21<\/strong>(6):377. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

31. Jiang TC, Li LY, Peng W, Yang XD. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in Yichang college students. J Shanxi Med Univ. <\/em>2002;33<\/strong>(S1):5\u20136. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

32. Kong JL, Shao CL, Ren LL, Nie LH. Mite infection survey of medical college students. J Math Med. <\/em>2011;24<\/strong>(1):78. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

33. Li JH. The epidemiology investigation of demodicidosis in Huairen of Guizhou. Guizhou Med J. <\/em>1990;14<\/strong>(5):314\u2013315. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

34. Li Z, Wang BR, Cheng YB, Ma C, Zhang MR. Investigation on the infection of Demodex<\/em> in Xi\u2019an. J Xi\u2019an Med Univ. <\/em>1991;12<\/strong>(2):165\u2013167. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

35. Liang DH, Xin B, Sun JB, Lu ZM. The investigation of Demodex<\/em> mites infection among 1037 university students of Zhangjiakou medical college. J Zhangjiakou Med Coll. <\/em>2003;20<\/strong>(2):20\u201322. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

36. Lin FC. Investigation of facial Demodex<\/em> infection in students of health school. J Sch Health. <\/em>1996;17<\/strong>(1):78. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

37. Liu GZ, Li XC. Investigation on the infection of Demodex<\/em> among students in primary and middle school in rural area of Yanzhou city. J Pathog Biol. <\/em>2006;1<\/strong>(1):s3. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

38. Liu YS, Yang YP, Xie D, Liu SH, Zhao Q, Miu HH, Chen SJ, Zhu XP. Analysis of Demodex<\/em> infection of college students. Chin J Parasit Dis Con. <\/em>2005;18<\/strong>(5):396. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

39. Moravvej H, Dehghan-Mangabadi M, Abbasian MR, Meshkat-Razavi G. Association of rosacea with demodicosis. Arch Iran Med. <\/em>2007;10<\/strong>(2):199\u2013203. [PubMed<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

40. Nong ZJ. An analysis of the investigation on demodectic infection and epidemics in middle school students and pupils. Acta Med Sin. <\/em>1994;7<\/strong>:21\u201323. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

41. Nong ZJ, Nong LL, Mo G, Jiang LP. Demodex<\/em> infection of medical students and its related factors. Chin J Sch Health. <\/em>2011;32<\/strong>(1):84\u201385. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

42. Okyay P, Ertabaklar H, Savk E, Ertug S. Prevalence of Demodex folliculorum<\/em> in young adults: relation with sociodemographic\/hygienic factors and acne vulgaris. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. <\/em>2006;20<\/strong>(4):474\u2013476. doi: 10.1111\/j.1468-3083.2006.01470.x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

43. Pan CW. A study on the epidemiology of human Demodex<\/em> in Wenzhou. J Wenzhou Med Coll. <\/em>1989;19<\/strong>(3):195\u2013196. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

44. Pan CW, Zhang ZY. Investigation on Demodex<\/em> infection in 737 facial demodicosis patients. Chin J Dermatovenereol. <\/em>1992;6<\/strong>(3):156. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

45. Peng RY, Liu YM, Tian GP, Bian TY, Zhang YH. Investigation on the infestation, the pathogenic effect of the mites in Tianjin. Tianjin Med J. <\/em>1983;11<\/strong>(10):592\u2013594. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

46. Post CF, Juhlin E. Demodex folliculorum<\/em> and blepharitis. Arch Dermatol. <\/em>1963;88<\/strong>(3):298\u2013302. doi: 10.1001\/archderm.1963.01590210056008. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

47. Purcell SM, Hayes TJ, Dixon SL. Pustular folliculitis associated with Demodex folliculorum<\/em> . J Am Acad Dermatol. <\/em>1986;15<\/strong>(5):1159\u20131162. doi: 10.1016\/S0190-9622(86)70287-9. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

48. Qin J, Liu YC, Guo YH, Sheng ZQ. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection among college students. J Jining Med Coll. <\/em>1988;11<\/strong>(4):31\u201333. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

49. Qin XH, Qin WQ, Liu XQ, Lu ZC. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in medical students and relative analysis. Guangxi J Prev Med. <\/em>2005;11<\/strong>(6):337\u2013339. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

50. Rosenthal R. The file-drawer problem and tolerance of null results. Psychol Bull. <\/em>1979;86<\/strong>(3):638\u2013641. doi: 10.1037\/0033-2909.86.3.638. [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

51. Ru XY, Chen XB, Hu SF, Su LY, Liu JH, Chen XC. Investigation on human Demodex<\/em> in the students of primary and middle schools. J Taishan Med Coll. <\/em>1993;14<\/strong>(2):114\u2013116. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

52. Shang JK, Xu SZ, Jiang GY, Ma Y, Qiao ZJ, Zhang Y. Investigation on Demodex<\/em> infestation in 1103 health and patients with skin disease. J Pract Dermatol. <\/em>2010;3<\/strong>(1):13\u201315. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

53. Song P, Liu SJ, Zhao FZ. Investigation of human Demodex<\/em> infection between 2007 and 2008. China Foreign Med Treat. <\/em>2009;28<\/strong>:118\u2013119. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

54. Sun XQ, Zhao SY, Su J. Examination of students of a college infected with Demodex<\/em> folliculorum in Harbin. J Harbin Med Univ. <\/em>1987;21<\/strong>(5):22\u201324. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

55. Suo ZQ, Shi YM, Yun DC. Investigation of demodicid mites infection among school students in Zhengzhou. Henan J Prev Med. <\/em>2001;12<\/strong>(6):339\u2013340. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

56. Tao YJ, Peng FG, Hu XH. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in 1520 medical students. Pract Prev Med. <\/em>2007;14<\/strong>(5):1463\u20131464. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

57. Tu\u2019er XA, Qiao JY, Xue HB. Study on pathogenicity and pathogenic factor of human Demodex<\/em> . Endem Dis Bull. <\/em>1997;12<\/strong>(2):80\u201381. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

58. Wang AH, Wang T. Analysis of the relation between the facial skin diseases and the infection of demodicid mites in teenagers. Mod Prev Med. <\/em>2008;35<\/strong>(17):3396\u20133399. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

59. Wang GY, Zhang YS. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection among medical students. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. <\/em>2006;24<\/strong>(2):156\u2013157. (in Chinese) [PubMed<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

60. Wang HY, Wang XX, Tu LX. Infection of human Demodex<\/em> on facial skin of middle and primary students in rural areas of Huaibei. Mod Prev Med. <\/em>2010;37<\/strong>(9):1728\u20131729. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

61. Wang YP, Cui LM, Wang C, Li F, Qiu ZX. Investigation on the Demodex<\/em> infestation in Changchun. J Norman Bethune Univ Med Sci. <\/em>1982;8<\/strong>(3):79\u201380. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

62. Xia H, Hu SF, Chen XB. Relationship between vermiform mite infection and facial dermatosis. J Pract Parasit Dis. <\/em>1999;7<\/strong>(3):142\u2013143. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

63. Xing DR, Shi JM, Wu ZX. Further investigation on human Demodex<\/em> infestation in Xuzhou. Acta Acad Med Xuzhou. <\/em>1988;8<\/strong>(4):250\u2013252. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

64. Yang HN, Che J, Yang HN, Xiao QL. Study on the association between acne vulgaris and Demodex<\/em> infection and Cuofuxin liniment treatment. Med J Chin People\u2019s Armed Police Forces. <\/em>2006;17<\/strong>(1):55. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

65. Yang XH, Duan XL. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in young students. J Shanxi Med Coll Contin Educ. <\/em>2001;11<\/strong>(2):31\u201332. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

66. Yang XH, Fan LN, Sun XL, Liu TQ, Yang GH, Qi L. Investigation and analysis of 452 Demodex<\/em> infection cases. Hebei Med J. <\/em>2001;23<\/strong>(3):215. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

67. Yang XH, Wang P, Deng SF, Wang H, Feng JX, Liu Y, Sun XL. Demodex<\/em> infection investigation of 432 health noncommissioned officer students. Clin J Med Offic. <\/em>2010;38<\/strong>(3):478\u2013479. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

68. Yang XH, Deng SF, Wang P, Feng JX, Fu ZJ, Wang H, Zhao ML. Demodex<\/em> infection investigation of military health NCO trainees. Chin J Clin Rational Drug Use. <\/em>2011;4<\/strong>(7A):163\u2013164. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

69. Yang XM, Luo Y. Survey of infectious status of facial vermiform mite in some primary school pupils and middle school students in Haikou City. China Trop Med. <\/em>2006;6<\/strong>(8):1532\u20131533. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

70. Yang ZH, Pan B, Lin RX, Gu SH. Epidemiological study of human Demodex<\/em> in Guangdong province. Guangdong J Health Epidemic Prev. <\/em>1998;24<\/strong>(4):1\u20133. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

71. Yao ZL. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in Qingdao students. Chin J Parasitol Parasit Dis. <\/em>2005;23<\/strong>(4):255. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

72. Yuan FS, Guo SL, Han YM, Deng SH, Huang GH. The curative effect of the cream made from the volatile oil of Chinese prickly ash on demodicidosis. Chin J Parasit Dis Con. <\/em>2003;16<\/strong>(1):58\u201360. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

73. Zhan PL, Shi LL, Sun L, Zeng RR. Investigation of human Demodex<\/em> infection in Hepu county. J Guangxi Med Univ. <\/em>1997;14<\/strong>(1):146\u2013147. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

74. Zhang HY, Shao ZP, Ding YL, Xia P. Investigation and relative factors analysis on Demodex<\/em> infection in undergraduate students. J Public Health Prev Med. <\/em>2007;18<\/strong>(1):65\u201366. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

75. Zhang JS, Cui JG, Zhang WZ, Tang HW. Investigation of human Demodex<\/em> infection. J Hebei North Univ. <\/em>1985;2<\/strong>:5\u20136. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

76. Zhang MH, Xia H, Hu SF. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in undergraduate students and observation of therapy. J Trop Dis Parasitol. <\/em>2005;3<\/strong>(4):213\u2013215. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

77. Zhang XS, Tong XL, Guo Q. Investigation on Demodex<\/em> infection of 1012 patients with skin disease. Chin J Parasit Dis Con. <\/em>1991;4<\/strong>(2):94. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

78. Zhao YE, Feng LP, Xun M, Li XQ, Long Q. Investigation on the infection of Demodex folliculorum<\/em> and analysis on relative factors. Chin J Parasit Dis Con. <\/em>2004;17<\/strong>(1):56\u201357. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

79. Zhao YE, Guo N, Wu LP. The effect of temperature on the viability of Demodex folliculorum<\/em> and Demodex brevis<\/em> . Parasitol Res. <\/em>2009;105<\/strong>(6):1623\u20131628. doi: 10.1007\/s00436-009-1603-x. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

80. Zhao YE, Wu LP, Peng Y, Cheng H. Retrospective analysis of the association between Demodex<\/em> infestation and rosacea. Arch Dermatol. <\/em>2010;146<\/strong>(8):896\u2013902. doi: 10.1001\/archdermatol.2010.196. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

81. Zhao YE, Guo N, Xun M, Xu JR, Wang M, Wang DL. Sociodemographic characteristics and risk factor analysis of Demodex<\/em> infestation (Acari: Demodicidae) J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B (Biomed & Biotechnol) <\/em>2011;12<\/strong>(12):998\u20131007. doi: 10.1631\/jzus.B1100079. [PMC free article<\/a>] [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

82. Zhao YE, Peng Y, Wang XL, Wu LP, Wang M, Yan HL, Xiao SX. Facial dermatosis associated with Demodex<\/em>: a case-control study. J Zhejiang Univ-Sci B (Biomed & Biotechnol) <\/em>2011;12<\/strong>(12):1008\u20131015. doi: 10.1631\/jzus.B1100179. [PMC free article<\/a>] [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

83. Zhao YE, Guo N, Wu LP. The influence of temperature and medium on viability of Demodex folliculorum<\/em> and Demodex brevis<\/em> (Acari: Demodicidae) Exp Appl Acarol. <\/em>2011;54<\/strong>(4):421\u2013425. doi: 10.1007\/s10493-011-9445-5. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

84. Zhao YE, Wu LP, Hu L, Xu JR. Association of blepharitis with Demodex<\/em>: a meta-analysis. Ophthal Epidemiol. <\/em>2012 doi: 10.3109\/09286586.2011.642052. in press. [PubMed<\/a>] [CrossRef<\/a>] [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

85. Zhou DS, Zhu ZY, Deng ZQ, Liu WT. Investigation of humans Demodex<\/em> infection in Xuwen county. Chin J Epdemiol. <\/em>2002;23<\/strong>(1):31. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

86. Zhou HY, Zhao QL. Investigation of Demodex<\/em> infection in youth. Chin J Pest Con. <\/em>2001;17<\/strong>(12):639\u2013640. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

87. Zhou L, Wu YJ. Investigation on the infection of Demodex<\/em> in college students. Chin J Parasit Dis Con. <\/em>2003;16<\/strong>(5):262.(in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

88. Zou M, Zhou DS, Dong JC, Luo YD, Liu WT, Zhou RH. Investigation on the Demodex<\/em> infection among 2475 students of middle and primary school. Chin J Parasit Dis Con. <\/em>2004;17<\/strong>(4):243\u2013244. (in Chinese) [Google Scholar<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Ya-e Zhao,\u2020 Li Hu, Li-ping Wu, and  Jun-xian Ma Until now, etiology of acne vulgaris is still uncertain. Although clinicians usually deny the association between Demodex infestation and acne vulgaris, it has been proved in some clinical practices. To confirm the association between Demodex infestation and acne vulgaris, a meta-analysis was conducted. Predefined selection criteria were applied to search all published […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":263,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Screen-Shot-2022-06-22-at-11.09.38-AM-300x165-1.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":269,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268\/revisions\/269"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/263"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.facedoctorsoaps.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}