Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17943774›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

M Nurbhai, J Grimshaw, M Watson, Cm Bond, J Mollison, A Ludbrook

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Treatment for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Probiotics for vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  5. Candidiasis (vulvovaginal).BMJ clinical evidence · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Candidiasis (vulvovaginal).BMJ clinical evidence · 2010
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Distribution and Drug Susceptibility ofJundishapur journal of microbiology · 2016
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M NurbhaiOttawa Health Research Institute, ASB Box 693, Rm 2-006, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4 E9. mnurbhia@ohri.ca
J Grimshaw
M Watson
Cm Bond
J Mollison
A Ludbrook
University of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

objectivesThe primary objective of this review was to assess the relative effectiveness of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The secondary objectives of the review were to assess the cost-effectiveness, safety and patient preference of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following sources were searched for the original review: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000) and the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. The manufacturers of anti-fungals available in the UK were contacted. For the update, CENTRAL (January 2000 to August 2006), PUBMED (January 2000 to August 2006), EMBASE (January 2000 to August 2006) and the Cochrane STD Group Specialised Register were searched in August 2006. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed manually. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials published in any language. Trials had to compare at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal. Women (aged 16 years or over) with uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis to be made mycologically (i.e. a positive culture and / or microscopy for yeast). Trials were excluded if they solely involved subjects who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts of the electronic search results and full text of potentially relevant papers. Independent duplicate abstraction was performed by two reviewers. Disagreements regarding trial inclusion or data abstraction were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. Odds ratios were pooled using the fixed effects models (except for two analyses when random effects models were used because of potentially important heterogeneity). MAIN

resultsTwo new trials reporting three comparisons were found in the update. Nineteen trials are included in the review, reporting 22 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short term (OR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.17) and long term (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.41) follow-up. No statistically significant differences for mycological cure were observed between oral and intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.42). There was a statistically significant difference for long term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) in favour of oral treatment, however the clinical significance of this result is uncertain. Two trials each reported one withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse reaction. Treatment preference data were poorly reported. AUTHORS'

conclusionsNo statistically significant differences were observed in clinical cure rates of anti-fungals administered by the oral and intra-vaginal routes for the treatment of uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungals for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. The decision to prescribe or recommend the purchase of an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration: safety, cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAdministration, IntravaginalAdministration, OralAntifungal AgentsCandidiasis, VulvovaginalCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansImidazolesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTriazolesAntifungal AgentsImidazolesTriazoles

Identifiers

PMID17943774
OpenAlexW4253770474

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.