Tinea capitis in children: a systematic review of management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinea capitis is the most common cutaneous fungal infection in children. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to evaluate the differences that exist between medications for the treatment of tinea capitis, to determine whether there are any significant adverse effects associated and to define the usefulness of sample collection methods. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of available papers using the databases PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Libraries and ClinicalTrials.gov. Twenty-one RCTs and 17 CTs were found. RESULTS: Among the different antifungal therapies (oral and combination thereof), continuous itraconazole and terbinafine had the highest mycological cure rates (79% and 81%, respectively), griseofulvin and terbinafine had the highest clinical cure rates (46% and 58%, respectively) and griseofulvin and terbinafine had the highest complete cure rate (72% and 92%, respectively). Griseofulvin more effectively treated Microsporum infections; terbinafine and itraconazole more effectively cured Trichophyton infections. Only 1.0% of children had to discontinue medication based on adverse events. T. tonsurans was the most common organism found in North America, and hairbrush collection method is the most efficient method of sample collection. Additionally, using a hairbrush, toothbrush or cotton swab to identify the infecting organism(s) is the least invasive and most efficient method of tinea capitis sample collection in children. CONCLUSIONS: Current dosing regimens of reported drugs are effective and safe for use in tinea capitis in children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".