Terbinafine in the Treatment of <i>Trichophyton</i> Tinea Capitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Duration-Finding Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Terbinafine has been shown to be effective in tinea capitis, using different treatment durations. However, no direct comparison of treatment duration has previously been investigated. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study was designed to assess the effect of terbinafine treatment duration on the outcome of Trichophyton tinea capitis in a North American population. METHODS: A total of 176 patients with a clinical diagnosis of tinea capitis were enrolled in this study and treated with oral terbinafine (3-6 mg/kg/d) for 1, 2, or 4 weeks. All patients were to be followed until week 12. A total of 159 patients had culture-confirmed tinea capitis attributable to Trichophyton species and constituted the intent-to-treat population used for efficacy analysis (50, 55, and 54 patients in the 1-, 2-, and 4-week arms, respectively). RESULTS: At the end of study, effective treatment, defined as negative culture and low scores on signs and symptoms, was achieved in 56%, 69%, and 65% of patients who were treated with terbinafine for 1, 2, and 4 weeks, respectively. A negative culture was achieved in 60%, 76%, and 72%, respectively. Overall, the efficacy data showed that both the 2- and 4-week treatment regimens are clinically superior to the 1-week regimen. Terbinafine was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events showed no relationship to the duration of therapy. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, cost, and compliance are taken into consideration, 2 weeks of terbinafine therapy appears to be the optimal treatment duration for patients with Trichophyton tonsurans tinea capitis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".