Acyclovir for treating varicella in otherwise healthy children and adolescents: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acyclovir has the potential to shorten the course of chickenpox which may result in reduced costs and morbidity. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials that evaluated acyclovir for the treatment of chickenpox in otherwise healthy children. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched. The reference lists of relevant articles were examined and primary authors and Glaxo Wellcome were contacted to identify additional trials. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment, and extracted data. Continuous data were converted to a weighted mean difference (WMD). Overall estimates were not calculated due to differences in the age groups studied. RESULTS: Three studies were included. Methodological quality was 3 (n = 2) and 4 (n = 1) on the Jadad scale. Acyclovir was associated with a significant reduction in the number of days with fever, from -1.0 (95% CI -1.5,-0.5) to -1.3 (95% CI -2.0,-0.6). Results were inconsistent with respect to the number of days to no new lesions, the maximum number of lesions and relief of pruritus. There were no clinically important differences between acyclovir and placebo with respect to complications or adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Acyclovir appears to be effective in reducing the number of days with fever among otherwise healthy children with chickenpox. The results were inconsistent with respect to the number of days to no new lesions, the maximum number of lesions and the relief of itchiness. The clinical importance of acyclovir treatment in otherwise healthy children remains controversial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".