http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40001034/
Using the Google search engine, this is an easily accessible website. It has an in-depth area called patient plus, ostensibly written for doctors, which was by far the most informative part of the website. Overall, the site is well laid out, with good colour photographs, and presented in a format familiar to most doctors. It could perhaps have been more descriptive and optimistic in the treatment of rhinophyma, although it is well referenced.***
www.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/rhinophyma_folder/rhinophyma.html
This site was set-up by Dr Michael Bermant, Board Certified by The American Board of Plastic Surgery. The site appears fairly lightweight and lacking in authority and some of the information is erroneous, i.e. ‘Rhinophyma has been associated with many causes such as the over-consumption of alcohol’. The site does, however, discuss treatment options, concentrating on surgical management, with good before and after photos of dermaplaning and dermabrasion, but glosses over the role of lasers in treatment of rosacea and rhinophyma. On the whole, it is quite a poor site considering the prominence it is given in search engine hits, with some information omitted or just plain wrong.*
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=325§ionId=1998
The NHS Direct site is set-up in a clear and easily navigable fashion. It is relatively comprehensive, although there is little here to recommend it to medical practitioners. The site certainly performs well as a basic starting point for someone researching rosacea, but does little to explain rhinophyma, and the paucity of photographic information is a definite weakness.***
www.cosmeticprocedureguide.ca/rhinophyma.html
An excellent site, part of the Skin Care Guide site, it provides information on the causes and effects of rosacea and rhinophyma in a way that is accessible to both doctor and patient. It explains the procedures involved and, though it has an understandable tilt towards surgical intervention, covers them well. One criticism is the omission of non-surgical interventions for rosacea.****
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001037.htm
This site is very brief and concise, without erroneous information, but anyone researching the topic will, of necessity, need to look elsewhere.**
http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic377.htm
This article written by Agnieszka Kupiec-Banasikowska MD, Consulting Staff, Division of Dermatology, Georgetown University Medical Center and edited by multiple dermatological luminaries provides, as one might expect, a very thorough and comprehensive explanation of the aetiology, treatment and prognosis of rosacea, but less so for rhinophyma. Its strength is also perhaps its only weakness, in so far as the dense medical language used would make it difficult for a layman to interpret, and may initially appear forbidding. While separate articles on dermabrasion, and laser resurfacing within the site are expertly written, they are quite general about which conditions may be treated, and anyone looking specifically for information regarding rhinophyma may well be overwhelmed.***
www.rosacea.org/
This website, which is home to The National Rosacea Society, is on first appearance a poor attempt at an educational website, plastered with obtrusive banners and superficial taglines which can be immediately off-putting. With perseverance, there is access to information for both physician and patient in separate areas on the site. While it may be idealistic to expect websites without the invasive presence of advertisements, they negatively impacted on the image of the site, and lessened the feeling of authenticity of the information presented.**
www.rosacea.co.uk
Any hopes that a British website would be free of pervasive advertisements were quickly dashed. This quite amateurish website is merely a list of endorsements or warnings from treated patients writing about their treatment experiences. While it may provide some sense of community to rosacea sufferers, the information it provides is the worst of any of the sites reviewed. It fails to give even the most basic medical information about rosacea and rhinophyma, and relies on hearsay and personal testimonies for its content.*