ReviewOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Orolabial and Genital Herpes Clinical Trials: A Meta-analysis of Endpoints.
Review in Open forum infectious diseases, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although several antiviral agents are licensed for the treatment of orolabial and genital herpes simplex virus infections, new therapies are needed. Trial design is challenging for these indications due to the heterogeneity of endpoints in prior trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials published between 1995 and 2024 consisting of adults with established herpes simplex virus infection who were immunocompetent and nonpregnant. A total of 22 articles met the inclusion criteria. For episodic treatment, endpoints included time to healing, proportion with an aborted lesion, and time to cessation of symptoms. For daily suppressive therapy, endpoints included time to first recurrence, proportion recurrence-free at 1 year, and total shedding rate. We observed that over the last 30 years, clinical trials have used various endpoints with nonstandardized definitions. A reassessment of appropriate endpoints along with regulatory guidance would assist with consistent study design for evaluation of new agents.
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.