Systemic Antifungals to Treat Onychomycosis in Children: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the low prevalence of onychomycosis in children, little is known about the efficacy and safety of systemic antifungals in this population. PubMed and Embase databases and the references of related publications were searched in March 2012 for clinical trials (CTs), retrospective analyses (RAs), and case reports (CRs) on the use of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in children (<18 years). Twenty-six studies (5 CTs, 3 RAs, and 18 CRs) were published between 1976 and 2011. Most of these studies reported the use of systemic terbinafine and itraconazole for the treatment of onychomycosis in children. Therapy with systemic antifungals alone in children ages 1 to 17 years resulted in a complete cure rate of 70.8% (n = 151), whereas combined systemic and topical antifungal therapy in one infant and 19 children age 8 and older resulted in a complete cure rate of 80.0% (n = 20). The efficacy and safety profiles of terbinafine, itraconazole, griseofulvin, and fluconazole in children were similar to those previously reported for adults. In conclusion, based on the little information available on onychomycosis in children, systemic antifungal therapies in children are safe and cure rates are similar to the rates achieved in adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".