Terbinafine in the treatment of dermatophyte toenail onychomycosis: a meta‐analysis of efficacy for continuous and intermittent regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare mycological and complete cures of terbinafine continuous and intermittent regimens in the treatment of toenail onychomycosis. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched using the terms "terbinafine", "onychomycosis", "continuous" and "pulse(d)" or "intermittent". The inclusion criteria were head-to-head comparison of terbinafine pulse and continuous regimens for dermatophyte toenail infections. Risk ratios were calculated for intention-to-treat and evaluable patient analyses, when possible. Pooled estimates for total and subgroup analyses were calculated using a random effect model, Mantel-Haenszel method and their probabilities were calculated with z-statistics. RESULTS: Nine studies from eight publications were included. Two continuous regimens and four intermittent regimens were investigated. A pooled risk ratio of 0.87 was obtained for intention-to-treat (95% CI: 0.79-0.96, P = 0.004, n = 6) and evaluable patient (95% CI: 0.80-0.96, P = 0.003, n = 8) analyses of mycological cure, favouring continuous terbinafine. For complete cure, pooled risk ratios of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.77-1.23, P = 0.82, n = 7) for intention-to-treat and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.76-1.13, P = 0.44, n = 9) for evaluable patient analyses showed equality of the two regimens. The pulse regimen that demonstrated consistently comparable results to the continuous terbinafine regimen was two pulses of terbinafine 250 mg/day for 4 weeks on/4 weeks off. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of published studies of toenail onychomycosis showed that a continuous terbinafine regimen is generally significantly superior to a pulsed terbinafine regimen for mycological cure. In contrast, some pulse terbinafine regimens were as effective as continuous terbinafine regimens for complete cure.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".