↓ Skip to main content

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002845.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Munira Nurbhai, Jeremy Grimshaw, Margaret Watson, Christine M Bond, Jill A Mollison, Anne Ludbrook

Abstract

Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush). The primary objective of this review was to assess the relative effectiveness of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The secondary objectives of the review were to assess the cost-effectiveness, safety and patient preference of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals. The following sources were searched for the original review: The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 1999), MEDLINE (January 1985 to May 2000), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2000) and the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials. The manufacturers of anti-fungals available in the UK were contacted. For the update, CENTRAL (January 2000 to August 2006), PUBMED (January 2000 to August 2006), EMBASE (January 2000 to August 2006) and the Cochrane STD Group Specialised Register were searched in August 2006. The reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed manually. Randomised controlled trials published in any language. Trials had to compare at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal. Women (aged 16 years or over) with uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. The diagnosis of vulvovaginal candidiasis to be made mycologically (i.e. a positive culture and / or microscopy for yeast). Trials were excluded if they solely involved subjects who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. The primary outcome measure was clinical cure. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts of the electronic search results and full text of potentially relevant papers. Independent duplicate abstraction was performed by two reviewers. Disagreements regarding trial inclusion or data abstraction were resolved by discussion between the reviewers. Odds ratios were pooled using the fixed effects models (except for two analyses when random effects models were used because of potentially important heterogeneity). Two new trials reporting three comparisons were found in the update. Nineteen trials are included in the review, reporting 22 oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungal comparisons. No statistically significant differences were shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short term (OR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.17) and long term (OR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.41) follow-up. No statistically significant differences for mycological cure were observed between oral and intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.15, 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.42). There was a statistically significant difference for long term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.60) in favour of oral treatment, however the clinical significance of this result is uncertain. Two trials each reported one withdrawal from treatment due to an adverse reaction. Treatment preference data were poorly reported. No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical cure rates of anti-fungals administered by the oral and intra-vaginal routes for the treatment of uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. No definitive conclusion can be made regarding the relative safety of oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungals for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. The decision to prescribe or recommend the purchase of an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration: safety, cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 27%
Other 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 22 26%
Unknown 5 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 9%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 9 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2018.
All research outputs
#786,054
of 13,877,211 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,464
of 10,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,382
of 234,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#78
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,877,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,814 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.