Question · asked by 1 review
Band ligation vs no intervention or a sham procedure: Adverse events considered non‐serious
- Population
- children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices, without previous gastrointestinal bleeding or beta‐blocker treatment
- Intervention
- Band ligation
- Comparison
- no intervention or a sham procedure
- Outcome
- Adverse events considered non‐serious
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Band ligation vs sham or no intervention Adverse events considered not serious · children with portal hypertension and large oesophageal varices, without previous gastrointestinal bleeding or… The review found no eligible studies for this question. Band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in… (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Band ligation versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents with… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | 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.