Question · asked by 1 review
Sclerotherapy vs no intervention: Non‐serious adverse events
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Sclerotherapy vs no intervention Non‐serious adverse events · primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis Sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in… (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 108 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sclerotherapy versus sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver… 2020 · 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.