SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2024
Efficacy and safety of different drugs for the treatment of bacterial vaginosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2024. 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.
- Trial
- Recent Advances in the Role of Bacteriophages in the Aetiology and Therapy of Vaginal Dysbiosis in the Form of Bacterial Vaginosis and the Prevention of Preterm Birth.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Ornidazole-Induced Liver Injury: The Clinical Characterization of a Rare Adverse Reaction and Its Implications from a Multicenter Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- The Vaginal Virome in Women's Health and Disease.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Antimicrobial activity ofPeerJ · 2025Article
- Endometrial Microbiome and Implantation: From Basic Knowledge to Clinical Medicine.Reproductive medicine and biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Bacterial vaginosis is a disease caused by vaginal microecology disorder, which seriously affects female health. At present, there are many drugs to treat BV, and this study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of multiple drugs for BV through a network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: All studies were sourced from PubMed and Embase databases from the establishment date to April 13, 2023. We evaluated the clinical cure success rate and adverse effects (abnormal increase in vaginal discharge, external genital irritation, and vulvar itching) and performed subgroup analyses of the clinical cure success rate for different modes of administration. All statistical analyses were performed using R and STATA 14.0 software for network meta-analysis. Results: We included 42 studies that met the criteria, involving a total of 8382 patients. Network meta-analysis results showed that metronidazole and secnidazole had a higher rate of adverse reactions than placebo (RR 7.06; 95%-CI 2.61-19.10, RR 4.03; 95%-CI 1.63-9.98), the adverse reaction rate of probiotics group was lower than that of metronidazole group (RR 0.44; 95%-CI 0.21-0.93). The clinical cure rate of oral ornidazole was better than clindamycin (RR 16.08; 95%-CI 1.72-150.47), Secnidazole (RR 8.17; 95%-CI 1.66-40.25) and probiotics. Direct meta-analysis results showed that ornidazole had a better clinical cure rate than Secnidazole (RR 1.22; 95%-CI 1.10-1.34), oral ornidazole had a better clinical cure rate than Secnidazole (RR 1.23; 95%-CI 1.11-1.36). The clinical cure rate of vaginal application of sucrose was better than metronidazole (RR 1.12; 95%-CI 1.03-1.21) and metronidazole had a lower clinical cure rate than probiotics (RR 0.68; 95%-CI 0.52-0.88). Conclusions: The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis suggest that ornidazole may be an effective alternative for the treatment of BV, and that sucrose and probiotics are potential BV treatments that need to be validated by more high-quality clinical studies in the future.
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.