Czech
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
BMJ clinical evidence 2010-Jan

Candidiasis (vulvovaginal).

Články mohou překládat pouze registrovaní uživatelé
Přihlášení Registrace
Odkaz je uložen do schránky
Des Spence

Klíčová slova

Abstraktní

BACKGROUND

Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis. Candida albicans accounts for 85% to 90% of cases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of drug treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of alternative or complementary treatments for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant symptomatic women? What are the effects of treating a male sexual partner to resolve symptoms and prevent recurrence in non-pregnant women with symptomatic acute vulvovaginal candidiasis? What are the effects of alternative or complementary treatments for symptomatic recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis in non-pregnant women? What are the effects of treating a male sexual partner in non-pregnant women with symptomatic recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis? What are the effects of treating asymptomatic non-pregnant women with a positive swab for candidiasis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to March 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 61 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alternative or complementary treatments; douching; drug treatments; garlic; intravaginal preparations (boric acid, nystatin, imidazoles, tea tree oil); oral fluconazole; oral itraconazole; treating a male sexual partner; and yoghurt containing Lactobacillus acidophilus (oral or vaginal).

Připojte se k naší
facebookové stránce

Nejúplnější databáze léčivých bylin podložená vědou

  • Funguje v 55 jazycích
  • Bylinné léky podporované vědou
  • Rozpoznávání bylin podle obrázku
  • Interaktivní mapa GPS - označte byliny na místě (již brzy)
  • Přečtěte si vědecké publikace související s vaším hledáním
  • Hledejte léčivé byliny podle jejich účinků
  • Uspořádejte své zájmy a držte krok s novinkami, klinickými testy a patenty

Zadejte symptom nebo chorobu a přečtěte si o bylinách, které by vám mohly pomoci, napište bylinu a podívejte se na nemoci a příznaky, proti kterým se používá.
* Všechny informace vycházejí z publikovaného vědeckého výzkumu

Google Play badgeApp Store badge