Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral): Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions
- Population
- Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)
- Intervention
- Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous)
- Comparison
- Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)
- Outcome
- Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions
Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (oral); GRADE not reported.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral) Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies) Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (oral); GRADE not reported. Interventions for the prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus in patients being treated for cancer (2009) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.78 [0.26, 2.38] | 2 studies · 181 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus in patients being treated for cancer 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2008-11 | Not listed | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies) · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.