Question · asked by 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy: Proportion with zero bleeds

Population
people without inhibitors
Intervention
Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis
Comparison
on‐demand therapy
Outcome
Proportion with zero bleeds

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy
Proportion of participants with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors
Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).
Non‐clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 15.31 [0.96, 242.76]1 study · 53 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Non‐clotting factor therapies for preventing bleeds in people with congenital hemophilia A or B
2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
Not reportedNot extractedNot 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.