ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2005
Her choice: dealing with lactobacilli, vaginitis, and antibiotics.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for prevention and treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in women with HIV infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Candida albicans: the current status regarding vaginal infections.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vulvovaginal candidiasis is a common problem for women, yet there are many gaps in knowledge about candida's pathogenesis, immunity, and its reputed association with antibiotic use. Women often self-diagnose and self-manage the problem, yet one of the most common folk remedies used, the probiotic lactobacillus, has no biologically plausible mechanism to explain any beneficial actions and no rigorous evidence to support its effectiveness. This paper explores these issues and summaries potential areas for further research.
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.