Question · asked by 1 review
Systemic oral acyclovir vs placebo or no treatment: QoL
- 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
- QoL
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 2 · 100%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%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 Quality of life (assessed by a validated questionnaire) · 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 (2008) · Cochrane All outcomes | No data were available in either included study (Amir 1997b; Ducoulombier 1988). | Not reported | No studies found |
Systemic oral acyclovir vs Placebo or no treatment Quality of life (assessed by a validated questionnaire) · 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 Acyclovir for treating primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (2007) · Cochrane All outcomesearlier version CD006700, superseded | Protocol secondary outcome: quality of life as assessed by a validated questionnaire. | 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.