SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002
Oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Expert Panel Review of Skin and Hair Dermatophytoses in an Era of Antifungal Resistance.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024Review
- Consensus for the Treatment of Tinea Pedis: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Reported incidence and treatment of dermatophytosis in children in general practice: a comparison between 1987 and 2001.Mycopathologia · 2007Article
- Dermatology for the practicing allergist: Tinea pedis and its complications.Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA · 2004Article
- A study to evaluate the price control of antifungal medicines and its practical applicability.Indian journal of pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbout 15% of the population have fungal infections of the feet (tinea pedis or athlete's foot). Whilst there are many clinical presentations of tinea pedis the most common are between the toes (interdigital) and on the soles, heels and sides of the foot (plantar) which is known as moccasin foot. Once acquired the infection can spread to other sites including the nails, which can be a source of reinfection. Oral therapy is usually used for chronic conditions or when topical treatment has failed.
objectivesTo assess the effects and costs of oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot (tinea pedis). SEARCH STRATEGY: Randomised controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from the beginning of these databases to January 2000. We also searched the Cochrane Controlled trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 1, 2000) the Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, CAB-Health, Health star and Economic databases. Bibliographies were searched, podiatry journals hand searched and the pharmaceutical industry and schools of podiatry contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who have a clinically diagnosed tinea pedis, confirmed by microscopy and growth of dermatophytes in culture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection was done by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality assessment and data collection was also assessed by two independent reviewers. MAIN
resultsTwelve trials, involving 700 participants, were included. The two trials comparing terbinafine and griseofulvin produced a pooled risk difference of 52% (95% confidence intervals 33% to 71%) in favour of terbinafine's ability to cure infection. No significant difference was detected between terbinafine and itraconazole; fluconazole and either itraconazole and ketoconazole; or between griseofulvin and ketoconazole, although the trials were generally small. Two trials showed that terbinafine and itraconazole were effective compared with placebo. Adverse effects were reported for all drugs, with gastrointestinal effects most commonly reported. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThe evidence suggests that terbinafine is more effective than griseofulvin and that terbinafine and itraconazole are more effective than no treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.