Comparing the Effectiveness of

Solmaz Mohammadi, Zahra Sadat Pajohideh, Mina Iravani, Faraz Mojab, Elham Maraghi

Open access · goldAbstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research. 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

0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

A randomised control trial to compareJournal of research in nursing : JRN · 2025
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Solmaz MohammadiStudent Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran.

Zahra Sadat PajohidehDepartment of Midwifery,Shoushtar faculty of Medical Sciences,shoushtar, Iran.

Mina IravaniAssociate Professor of Reproductive Health, Reproductive Health Promotion Research Center, Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

Faraz MojabSchool of Pharmacy, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Elham MaraghiDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences · IRIranshahr University · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Vulvovaginal candidiasis is the second most common cause of vulvovaginal infections. Due to the increasing resistance to synthetic antifungal drugs, the use of drugs with a natural origin is a priority. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of Materials and Methods: This triple-blind trial study was performed on 112 women with diagnosed Candida vaginitis clinically and by a laboratory test, patients were randomly divided into two groups receiving Results: After the intervention, vaginal culture was negative in terms of Candida in 17 (36.17%) patients of the Amoeba euchroma group and 37 (69.81%) patients of the clotrimazole group. The Chi-square showed that there was a significant difference between the culture results in both groups ( Conclusions: A vaginal cream containing

Indexed as

CandidiasisClotrimazoleIranrandomized controlled trialVulvovaginal

Identifiers

PMID35419264

DOI10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_330_20

PMCPMC8997174

OpenAlexW4224107575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-SA

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.