Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076488›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot.

S E Bell-Syer, R Hart, F Crawford, D J Torgerson, W Tyrrell, I Russell

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Topical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

S E Bell-SyerDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Genesis 6, Heslington, York, North Yorkshire, UK, YO10 5DQ. sembs1@york.ac.uk
R Hart
F Crawford
D J Torgerson
W Tyrrell
I Russell
University of Wales Institute Cardiff · SGUniversity of York · GBBangor University · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Administration, OralAntifungal AgentsChronic DiseaseHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTinea PedisAntifungal Agents

Identifiers

PMID12076488
OpenAlexW4254197005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.