Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide plus usual care vs placebo or usual care: All‐cause mortality at final
Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide plus usual care may leads to lower all‐cause mortality at final compared with usual care (with or without placebo) (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide plus usual care vs usual care (with or without placebo) All‐cause mortality at final · people with moderate to severe oral paraquat poisoning Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide plus usual care may leads to lower all‐cause mortality at final compared with usual care (with or without placebo) (low certainty). Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for oral paraquat poisoning (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.82 | 2 studies · 322 participants | Low |
Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide plus usual care vs usual care (with or without placebo) All‐cause mortality at final · people with moderate to severe oral paraquat poisoning Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide plus usual care showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality at final compared with usual care (with or without placebo) (low certainty). Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for oral paraquat poisoning (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.85, 1.13] | 1 study · 293 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for oral paraquat poisoning 2021 · 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.