Famciclovir vs placebo: Incidence of herpes labialis after use of the preventative intervention
Famciclovir showed no clear difference in incidence of herpes labialis during use of the preventative… compared with placebo (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Famciclovir vs placebo Incidence of herpes labialis during use of the preventative intervention (by clinical evaluation) ‐ famciclovir 250 mg · participants with recurrent herpes labialis Famciclovir showed no clear difference in incidence of herpes labialis during use of the preventative… compared with placebo (moderate certainty). Interventions for prevention of herpes simplex labialis (cold sores on the lips) (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.69 [0.45, 1.04] | 1 study · 122 participants | Moderate |
Famciclovir vs placebo Incidence of herpes labialis during use of the preventative intervention (by clinical evaluation) ‐ famciclovir 500 mg · participants with recurrent herpes labialis Famciclovir showed no clear difference in incidence of herpes labialis during use of the preventative… compared with placebo (moderate certainty). Interventions for prevention of herpes simplex labialis (cold sores on the lips) (2015) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.82 [0.56, 1.21] | 1 study · 121 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for prevention of herpes simplex labialis (cold sores on the lips) 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.