ReviewJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Consensus for the Treatment of Tinea Pedis: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Tinea Pedis in Children.Pediatric dermatologyPooled it
- Knowledge and Practices of the Jeddah Population Towards Tinea Pedis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Expert Panel Review of Skin and Hair Dermatophytoses in an Era of Antifungal Resistance.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024Review
- Old and new strategies in therapy and diagnosis against fungal infections.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Review
- Superficial Dermatophytosis across the World's Populations: Potential Benefits from Nanocarrier-Based Therapies and Rising Challenges.ACS omega · 2023Review
- Tinea pedis: an updated review.Drugs in context · 2023Review
- Allylamines, Benzylamines, and Fungal Cell Permeability: A Review of Mechanistic Effects and Usefulness against Fungal Pathogens.Membranes · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review literature enabling the comparison of the efficacy of pharmaceutical treatments for tinea pedis in adults. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with mycological cure as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes did include the clinical assessment of resolving infection or symptoms, duration of treatment, adverse events, adherence, and recurrence. Eligibility Criteria: Study participants suffering from only tinea pedis that were treated with a pharmaceutical treatment. The study must have been conducted using an RCT study design and recording age of the participant > 16 years of age. Results: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 1042 participants. The likelihood of resolution in study participants treated with terbinafine was RR 3.9 (95% CI: 2.0−7.8) times those with a placebo. Similarly, the allylamine butenafine was effective by RR 5.3 (95% CI: 1.4−19.6) compared to a placebo. Butenafine was similarly efficacious to terbinafine RR 1.3 (95% CI: 0.4−4.4). Terbinafine was marginally more efficacious than itraconazole, RR 1.3 (95% CI: 1.1−1.5). Summary/Conclusion: Topical terbinafine and butenafine treatments of tinea pedis were more efficacious than placebo. Tableted terbinafine and itraconazole administered orally were efficacious in the drug treatment of tinea pedis fungal infection. We are concerned about how few studies were available that reported the baseline characteristics for each treatment arm and that did not suffer greater than 20% loss to follow-up. We would like to see improved reporting of clinical trials in academic literature. Registration name: Treatment’s for athlete’s foot—systematic review with meta-analysis [CRD42020162078].
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.