Aditya K. Gupta, Daniel Taylor, Shruthi Polla Ravi, Tong Wang, M. Talukder
{"title":"股癣的治疗方法:文献计量分析","authors":"Aditya K. Gupta, Daniel Taylor, Shruthi Polla Ravi, Tong Wang, M. Talukder","doi":"10.1159/000539822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Oral antifungals were the earliest treatments to receive approval for the management of onychomycosis and have a long-standing record to support their efficacy. Topical antifungals and device-based treatments have been explored and some implemented in more recent years as alternatives to traditional oral antifungals. The present bibliometric analysis summarizes trends in publication frequency for onychomycosis treatment modalities over time and characterizes their body of literature in terms of types of studies available and relative level of evidence. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. Results: Covering all publications from 1970 to present day, our search identified oral therapeutics n = 295 articles (n = 63 randomized control trials [RCTs]), topical therapeutics n = 358 articles (n = 72 RCTs), and device-based treatments n = 158 articles (n = 37 RCTs). Spikes in research activity surround FDA approval of therapeutics for each treatment modality. Research activity within the last decade has focused on topical and device-based treatments. Evidence for efficacy of device-based treatments is lacking from relatively few high-quality RCTs. Conclusion: With growing concern for non-dermatophyte mold onychomycosis and terbinafine resistance, researchers should validate the efficacy and safety of device-based treatments with high-quality studies.","PeriodicalId":21844,"journal":{"name":"Skin Appendage Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatments for Onychomycosis: A Bibliometric Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Aditya K. Gupta, Daniel Taylor, Shruthi Polla Ravi, Tong Wang, M. Talukder\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000539822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Oral antifungals were the earliest treatments to receive approval for the management of onychomycosis and have a long-standing record to support their efficacy. Topical antifungals and device-based treatments have been explored and some implemented in more recent years as alternatives to traditional oral antifungals. The present bibliometric analysis summarizes trends in publication frequency for onychomycosis treatment modalities over time and characterizes their body of literature in terms of types of studies available and relative level of evidence. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. Results: Covering all publications from 1970 to present day, our search identified oral therapeutics n = 295 articles (n = 63 randomized control trials [RCTs]), topical therapeutics n = 358 articles (n = 72 RCTs), and device-based treatments n = 158 articles (n = 37 RCTs). Spikes in research activity surround FDA approval of therapeutics for each treatment modality. Research activity within the last decade has focused on topical and device-based treatments. Evidence for efficacy of device-based treatments is lacking from relatively few high-quality RCTs. Conclusion: With growing concern for non-dermatophyte mold onychomycosis and terbinafine resistance, researchers should validate the efficacy and safety of device-based treatments with high-quality studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Skin Appendage Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Skin Appendage Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000539822\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skin Appendage Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000539822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:口服抗真菌药物是最早获准用于治疗甲癣的药物,其疗效长期有效。近年来,人们开始探索外用抗真菌药物和基于设备的治疗方法,其中一些已成为传统口服抗真菌药物的替代品。本文献计量分析总结了随着时间的推移,股癣治疗方法的发表频率趋势,并从现有研究类型和相对证据水平的角度描述了这些方法的文献特征。方法:使用 Web of Science 和 SCOPUS 数据库进行了全面的文献检索。结果:我们的检索涵盖了从 1970 年至今的所有出版物,发现了口服药物疗法 n = 295 篇文章(n = 63 项随机对照试验 [RCT])、局部疗法 n = 358 篇文章(n = 72 项随机对照试验)和基于设备的疗法 n = 158 篇文章(n = 37 项随机对照试验)。每种治疗方式的研究活动都是在美国食品及药物管理局批准治疗方法的前后激增的。过去十年的研究活动主要集中在局部治疗和器械治疗方面。基于设备的治疗方法的疗效证据相对较少,高质量的 RCT 研究也相对较少。结论:随着人们对非皮癣霉菌性甲癣和特比萘芬耐药性的关注与日俱增,研究人员应通过高质量的研究来验证基于设备的治疗方法的有效性和安全性。
Treatments for Onychomycosis: A Bibliometric Analysis
Introduction: Oral antifungals were the earliest treatments to receive approval for the management of onychomycosis and have a long-standing record to support their efficacy. Topical antifungals and device-based treatments have been explored and some implemented in more recent years as alternatives to traditional oral antifungals. The present bibliometric analysis summarizes trends in publication frequency for onychomycosis treatment modalities over time and characterizes their body of literature in terms of types of studies available and relative level of evidence. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed using Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. Results: Covering all publications from 1970 to present day, our search identified oral therapeutics n = 295 articles (n = 63 randomized control trials [RCTs]), topical therapeutics n = 358 articles (n = 72 RCTs), and device-based treatments n = 158 articles (n = 37 RCTs). Spikes in research activity surround FDA approval of therapeutics for each treatment modality. Research activity within the last decade has focused on topical and device-based treatments. Evidence for efficacy of device-based treatments is lacking from relatively few high-quality RCTs. Conclusion: With growing concern for non-dermatophyte mold onychomycosis and terbinafine resistance, researchers should validate the efficacy and safety of device-based treatments with high-quality studies.