ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
Efficacy of
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intravaginal Formulation Strategies for Vaginal Disorders: Optimizing Phytochemical and Biological Preparations-A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) significantly impacts women's quality of life and often shows a high recurrence rate despite conventional antifungal therapies. This study evaluates the efficacy of Methods: The randomized, single-blind clinical trial involved 100 premenopausal women diagnosed with VVC. Participants were assigned to either a vaginal capsule containing LF5 probiotic strain or miconazole. Treatments were administered once daily for three consecutive days. Microbiological eradication of Results: Both treatments achieved a high rate of microbiological eradication of Candida spp. within the three-day treatment period (96% for LF5 and 94% for miconazole). Recurrence rates within 2 weeks post-treatment were low and similar between the groups (10% for LF5 and 17% for miconazole). LF5 was found to have a significantly lower incidence of local adverse reactions compared to miconazole (4 vs. 12%). Discussion: LF5 presents a viable alternative to miconazole for the treatment of VVC, offering comparable efficacy with fewer side effects. The results suggest that probiotic treatments can potentially enhance patient compliance and quality of life by reducing adverse reactions and recurrence rates. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in larger and more diverse populations.
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.