Trial reportMycopathologia2004
Correlation of in vitro itraconazole and fluconazole susceptibility with clinical outcome for patients with vulvovaginal candidiasis.
Trial report in Mycopathologia, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Superiority of biomimetic micelle-entrapped nanoporous silica xerogel to deliver poorly water-soluble itraconazole.RSC advances · 2022Article
- Efficacy of antifungal drugs in the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Infection and drug resistance · 2018Article
- Susceptibility testing of Candida albicans isolated from oropharyngeal mucosa of HIV(+) patients to fluconazole, amphotericin B and Caspofungin. killing kinetics of caspofungin and amphotericin B against fluconazole resistant and susceptible isolates.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2009Article
- Two cases of vaginitis caused by itraconazole-resistant Saccharomyces cerevisiae and a review of recently published studies.Mycopathologia · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between April 2001 and April 2002 were studied 106 women with a clinical diagnosis of vaginal candidiasis seen at the Gynecology and Obstetrics Ambulatory of the Hospital das Clínicas da Universidade Federal de Goiás. The patients were assessed on two occasions, before starting treatment with itraconazole or fluconazole (initial visit) and 14 days after treatment (return). At two visits the signs and symptoms were recorded and vaginal secretion was collected. According to the clinical evaluation, itraconazole was effective in 64.3%, while fluconazole was effective in 71.0% of the patients. The mycological cure rates (negative culture) in the return were 64.3% for the patients treated with itraconazole and 78.9% for the patients treated with fluconazole. The MICs of itraconazole and fluconazole for 80 Candida isolates were determined by Etest method. We investigated the correlation between in vitro susceptibility (Susceptible, Susceptibility Depending Dose and Resistant) to itraconazole and fluconazole with clinical outcome of the patients. The success rates were 63.9% for itraconazole and 90.6% for fluconazole in the susceptible category, 100.0% for both drugs in the susceptible dose dependent category, and 0.0% for both drugs in the resistant category. Our results showed there were a positive correlation between in vitro susceptibility test results with clinical outcome in vaginal Candida infections and that both drugs might be one choice in the treatment of vaginal candidiasis.
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.