Question · asked by 1 review
Systemic oral acyclovir vs placebo or no treatment: Adverse effects
- Population
- Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)
- Intervention
- Systemic oral acyclovir
- Comparison
- placebo or no treatment
- Outcome
- Adverse effects
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 1 · 50%GRADE not reported 1 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Systemic oral acyclovir vs Placebo or no treatment Adverse effects · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis) Acyclovir for treating primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (2008) · Cochrane All outcomes | Amir 1997b: two children in each group (2 vs 2) had mild gastrointestinal symptoms that resolved spontaneously after 24 to 48 hours without a change in study treatment. Ducoulombier 1988: no significant adverse effects… | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Systemic oral acyclovir vs Placebo or no treatment Adverse effects · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis) The review found no eligible studies for this question. Acyclovir for treating primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (2007) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD006700, superseded | Protocol adverse effects outcome: any specific adverse effects related to any clinically diagnosed reactions to the active intervention. | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acyclovir for treating primary herpetic gingivostomatitis 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2008-05 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.