Network Meta-Analysis of Onychomycosis Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many onychomycosis treatments have not been directly compared in head-to-head clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy of onychomycosis treatments using network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and NMA of mycological cure rates. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included in the network. Terbinafine 250 mg was significantly superior to all treatments except itraconazole 400 mg pulse therapy. The itraconazole 400 mg pulse regimen was significantly superior to all topicals except efinaconazole 10% nail solution. Itraconazole 200 mg was significantly superior to all topical treatments, while fluconazole 150-450 mg, efinaconazole 10% nail solution, tavaborole 5% nail solution, ciclopirox nail lacquer 8%, terbinafine nail solution, and amorolfine 5% nail lacquer were significantly superior to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Newly developed topicals have improved the odds ratios (ORs) of mycological cure, yet these ORs were not significantly greater than preexisting topical treatments. Further experience with these agents will reveal their clinical significance, and head-to-head trials are warranted. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".