Narrative reviewindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-ABX-11 standard review
Antibiotics and vaginal thrush
Antibiotic-associated Vulvovaginal Candidiasis.
Overview
Xu J & Sobel JD. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2003 · PMID 14642189 · DOI 10.1007/s11908-003-0091-x
Antibiotics may trigger yeast infections, but evidence is limited and conflicting.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Review.
- How was the study done?
Narrative.
- What was actually found?
Possible link.
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Thrush after antibiotics happens.
- What are the study's limitations?
Weak evidence.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Partly supports.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Frequency.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Xu J & Sobel JD
- Journal
- Curr Infect Dis Rep
- Year
- 2003
- Identifier
- PMID 14642189 DOI 10.1007/s11908-003-0091-x
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record
2. Research question
Is antibiotic use associated with vulvovaginal candidiasis?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Narrative review
- Population
Women
- Period
2003
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Antibiotics
- Endpoints
VVC
5. Actual results
- Results
Overuse of antibiotics suggested as major factor; evidence 'limited' and 'existing data ... are conflicting'.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Reviews incidence and mechanisms.
6. Strengths
- Specialist authors
7. Weaknesses
- Old
- Narrative
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
C-ABX-11 (mixed).
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Phenomenon recognised, evidence limited.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |