SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).
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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Probiotics for vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Candidiasis (vulvovaginal).BMJ clinical evidence · 2015Pooled it
- Interventions for prevention and treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis in women with HIV infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Candidiasis (vulvovaginal).BMJ clinical evidence · 2010Pooled it
- Vaginal tablets of dequalinium chloride 10 mg versus clotrimazole 100 mg for vaginal candidiasis: a double-blind, randomized study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Trial
- Role of Vaginal Microbiota Dysbiosis in Gynecological Diseases and the Potential Interventions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Clotrimazole for Vulvovaginal Candidosis: More Than 45 Years of Clinical Experience.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Antifungal (oral and vaginal) therapy for recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Distribution and Drug Susceptibility ofJundishapur journal of microbiology · 2016Article
- Vulvovaginal Candidosis (excluding chronic mucocutaneous candidosis). Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (AWMF Registry No. 015/072, S2k Level, December 2013).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2015Article
- Three-Day Combination Treatment for Vulvovaginal Candidosis with 200 mg Clotrimazol Vaginal Suppositories and Clotrimazol Cream for the Vulva is Significantly Better than Treatment with Vaginal Suppositories Alone - an Earlier, Multi-Centre, Placebo-Controlled Double Blind Study.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2014Article
- Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care.BMC public health · 2011Article
- Efficacy of albaconazole against Candida albicans in a vaginitis model.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2009Article
- Fenticonazole activity measured by the methods of the European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing and CLSI against 260 Candida vulvovaginitis isolates from two European regions and annotations on the prevalent genotypes.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2009Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.