Treatment options for vulvovaginal candidiasis: 1993 Reef S E, Levine W C, McNeil M M, Fisher-Hoc S, Holmberg S D, Duerr A, Smith D, Sobel J D, Pinner R W Authors' objectives To critically evaluate published studies on the treatment of acute or recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis in pregnant and non-pregnant women, and women infected with human immunodeficiency viurs (HIV). Searching MEDLINE was searched from 1974 to 1993; two books were reviewed for additional information. Study selection Study designs of evaluations included in the review Randomised controlled trials and controlled trials were included. Specific interventions included in the review Anti-fungal agents for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC). These were divided according to agents for topical therapy, oral therapy and intravaginal therapy. The topical agents were clotrimazole, miconazole, tioconazole, butoconazole and terconazole. The oral agents were itraconzole, ketoconazole and fluconazole. The intravaginal agents were butoconazole, clotrimazole, miconazole, tioconazole amd terconazole. Participants included in the review Pregnant and non-pregnant women with acute VVC. Women with recurrent VVC. HIV-infected women with acute or recurrent VVC. Outcomes assessed in the review Mycologic efficacy, defined as vaginal cultures negative for yeast at follow-up. Combined efficacy, defined as women lacking compatible signs and symptoms who had vaginal cultures negative for yeast. How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made? The authors do not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many of the authors performed the selection. Assessment of study quality The included studies were those which defined acute VVC as the presence of clinical signs together with vaginal swab cultures positive for yeast, and had a follow-up of greater than or equal to 25 days. For the analysis of recurrent VVC, studies whose enrolment requirement included three or more clinically- and mycologically- documented episodes of VVC within the preceding twelve months were considered. The authors do not state how the papers were assessed for validity, or how many of the authors performed the validity assessment. Data extraction The authors do not state how the data were extracted for the review, or how many of the authors performed the data extraction. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Copyright © 2013 University of York Page: 1 / 3