Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 16;2020(1):CD012093. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012093.pub2

Montana 1994.

Methods RCT (parallel)
Study design: Double blind
Sample size calculation: No
Diagnosis mycology: KOH and culture
Big toenail specified: No
Statistical comparisons for outcomes: No
Duration of follow‐up: At 2 months
Time points of measurements: Months 6, 12 and 14
Location: unknown
Participants Total n: 20
Age: 18 to 75 years
Sex: Unknown
Inclusion criteria: Participants selected for the study were men and nonpregnant, nonlactating women between the ages of 18 and 75 with a clinical and mycologic diagnosis of distal subungual onychomycosis. A target toenail was chosen and was required to have at least 25% healthy nail.
Exclusion criteria: People with psoriasis, lichen planus, or other diseases that may affect the nails or people with significant systemic disease were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included known hypersensitivity to any of the ingredients of the medications, use of a topical antifungal medication within 1 month, or systemic medication within 3 months prior to screening
Disease duration: Unknown
Comparable at baseline: Unknown
Causative species: Unknown
Number of participants lost to follow‐up: lack of efficacy of drug: n = 1, nondermatophyte infection (treatment failed): n = 1; study arm unknown
Trial duration: unknown
Interventions Treatment duration: twice daily for 12 months
Drug in study arm 1: Active Group fungoid tincture (triacetin, cetylpyridinium chloride and chloroxylenol), n = 10.
Drug in study arm 2: Vehicle, n = 10
Outcomes Mycological cure (KOH and culture) at months 6, 12 and 14
Adverse events: reported
Notes Quote: "This study was supported by a research grant from [industry], which supplied all test materials."
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "Patients were randomly assigned"
Comment: Method of randomisation not specified
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Comment: No information was available
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Quote: "Neither the investigator nor the patients knew the type of medication that each patient received"
Comment: Appears to be blinded, but no indication if treatments looked identical
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Comment: Blinded, but no specific mention of outcome assessor blinding method or who performed assessments
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes High risk Quote: "Two patients did not complete the study for reasons unrelated to the drug trial. They were replaced by two additional patients. One patient dropped out due to lack of efficacy of the drug. One of the patients...had a nondermatophyte infection"
Comment: Treatment allocation of participants who did not complete the study not specified
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Comment: Clinical outcomes are not defined clearly or reported. Study pre‐dates trial registry in the USA
Other bias Low risk Comment: Not a multiple intervention trial, all outcomes reported for interventions