MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400035855 · doi:10.1097/olq.0000000000000300

A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle-Controlled Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Metronidazole Vaginal Gel 1.3% in the Treatment of Bacterial Vaginosis

2015· article· en· W2400035855 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jane R. Schwebke, Jeanne Marrazzo, Andrew P. Beelen, Jack D. Sobel

Bibliographic record

VenueSexually Transmitted Diseases · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersValeant Pharmaceuticals International
KeywordsMedicineBacterial vaginosisMetronidazoleAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical trialVaginal dischargeSurgeryGastroenterologyAntibioticsGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis (BV), a prevalent infection in women of reproductive age, is associated with increased risk of upper genital tract and sexually transmitted infections, and complications in pregnancy. Currently approved treatments include metronidazole, which requires once or twice daily intravaginal administration for 5 days or twice daily oral administration for 7 days. This phase 3 study determined the safety and efficacy of single-dose metronidazole vaginal gel (MVG) 1.3%. METHODS: In this double-blind, vehicle-controlled study, 651 women with clinical diagnosis of BV were randomized 1:1 to receive MVG 1.3% or vehicle vaginal gel. Primary efficacy measure was clinical cure (normal discharge, negative "whiff test," and <20% clue cells) at day 21. Secondary measures included therapeutic cure (both clinical and bacteriological; day 21) and bacteriologic cure (Nugent score <4), clinical cure, and time to resolution of symptoms (day 7). RESULTS: A total of 487 participants were included in the primary analysis. Clinical and therapeutic cure rates (day 21) were higher in participants treated with MVG 1.3% compared with vehicle gel (37.2% vs. 26.6% [P = 0.010] and 16.8% vs. 7.2% [P = 0.001], respectively). Clinical and bacteriologic cure rates (day 7) were also higher in the MVG 1.3% group (46.0% vs. 20.0% [P < 0.001] and 32.7% vs. 6.3% [P < 0.001], respectively). The median time to resolution of symptoms was shorter in the MVG 1.3% (day 6) than vehicle group (not reached). No serious adverse events were reported, and incidence was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose MVG 1.3% was safe and superior to vehicle gel in producing cure among women with BV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexually Transmitted DiseasesSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207