SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Efficacy of botanical antifungal and conventional antifungal in the treatment of oral candidiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of botanical drugs for treating various disorders has gained increasing attention in recent years, with many studies highlighting the efficacy of botanical antifungals against oral candidiasis. However, there is no definitive evidence indicating whether the botanical antifungals have superior or inferior efficacy compared to the conventional antifungals. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of herbal and botanical antifungals Methods: From inception to June 2024, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for randomized clinical trials published in English that investigated botanical antifungals compared to conventional antifungals in treating oral candidiasis. The primary outcome was lesion improvement, with Results: From 1,595 studies identified, 10 trials were included with 426 patients, and 13 botanical drugs were studied. Half (50%) of the included studies had a low risk of bias. Three (30%) studies showed higher efficacy of botanical antifungals, five (50%) studies showed comparable results, and two (20%) studies showed higher efficacy of conventional antifungals in lesion improvement of oral candidiasis. The meta-analysis with random-effects analysis, which encompassed five studies involving 278 patients, revealed no significant difference in lesion improvement for oral candidiasis between botanical and conventional antifungals. The relative risk (RR) was calculated at 0.99, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of (0.63, 1.56). Conclusion: Based on the limited evidence, botanical antifungals have comparable efficacy to conventional antifungals in treating oral candidiasis. Therefore, they may serve as adjunctive or alternative treatments. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024589391, identifier CRD42024589391.
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.