Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15933865›Full record

ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2005

[Antimicrobially effective compounded medications. Clinical value and critical comments].

R Eifler-Bollen, J W Fluhr

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Preoperative marking options].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R Eifler-BollenPharmazeutisches Laboratorium des Neuen Rezeptur Formulariums, Eschborn.
J W Fluhr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Triphenyl-methan dyes, traditionally used in dermatology should be reevaluated with caution. Their use should be limited due to the uncertain pharmacological-toxicological risk-benefit ratio and the lack of pharmacological quality of the raw substances. Sometimes antimicrobial activity is insufficient and the cytotoxic effects, along with the inhibition of wound healing, make these dyes less suitable for topical treatment in dermatology. Chinolinolsulfat (Chinosol) and Clioquinol should be used in low concentrations and only on small areas. Due to their negative benefit-risk profile ethracidinlactate-monohydrate (Rivanol) and phenylmercuri-borate (Mercuchrom) should not be used as topical antimicrobial substances. The present publication is intended to give practical recommendations on compounded medications for topical antimicrobial use. Even though some of the cited compounds must be considered critically, we recommend the topical use of chlorhexidine salts, polihexanide, triclosan, polyvidone iodide and silver compounds. Useful standardised compounded formulations containing these four groups are listed in the NRF (Neues Rezeptur Formularium: New German Pharmacopoeia for compounded medication).

Indexed as

Pharmacopoeias as TopicAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsDermatomycosesDrug CombinationsDrug CompoundingGermanyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Skin Diseases, BacterialTreatment OutcomeAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsDrug Combinations

Identifiers

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.