ReviewCureus2023
Efficacy of Terbinafine and Itraconazole Combination Therapy Versus Terbinafine or Itraconazole Monotherapy in the Management of Fungal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Antibiofilm activity of terbinafine, itraconazole and their combination against Sporothrix brasiliensis yeast-like form's biofilms.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026Article
- Combined itraconazole and terbinafine therapy for pediatric kerion: a report of two cases.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- The evolution of antifungal therapy: Traditional agents, current challenges and future perspectives.Current research in microbial sciences · 2025Review
- Diverse antifungal potency of terbinafine as a therapeutic agent against Exophiala dermatitidis in vitro.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fungal infections constitute a common dermatological illness rampant in underdeveloped countries. Combination drug therapy is becoming increasingly well-established owing to drug resistance because of monotherapy. Different studies have been conducted previously to compare the medical regimens for the treatment of fungal infections. However, there is insufficient research on the difference in cure rates and recurrence rates with each regimen. To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first to compare the effect of the most widely used oral antifungal medications and their combination usage. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assesses the efficacy of terbinafine or itraconazole monotherapy versus combination therapy in fungal diseases. We queried PubMed and Cochrane Central from their inception to April 2022 for published studies, RCTs, and observational studies without any language restriction that compared itraconazole and terbinafine combination therapy with monotherapy in patients with fungal infections. The results from the studies were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model, and a p-value of ≤0.05 was considered significant for the analysis. Endpoints of interest included cure rates and recurrence rates. Cure rates were increased significantly for combination therapy compared to terbinafine monotherapy (RR=2.01 (1.37, 2.94); p=0.0003; I2=67%). On sensitivity analysis, a significant association was observed between combination therapy and itraconazole monotherapy in terms of cure rates (RR=1.91 (1.41, 2.57); p<0.0001; I2=0%) and recurrence rates (RR=0.08 (0.02, 0.44); p=0.003; I2=0%). The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that itraconazole and terbinafine combination therapy has a better cure rate when compared to terbinafine monotherapy.
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.