Question · asked by 1 review
L‐ornithine L‐aspartate vs probiotic: Non‐serious adverse events assessed using ICH‐GCP
- Population
- people with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic encephalopathy; regardless of sex, age, aetiology, and severity of the underlying liver disease, or the presence of identified precipitating factors
- Intervention
- L‐ornithine L‐aspartate
- Comparison
- probiotic
- Outcome
- Non‐serious adverse events assessed using ICH‐GCP
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
L‐ornithine L‐aspartate vs probiotic Non‐serious adverse events assessed using ICH‐GCP · people with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at risk for developing hepatic… The review found no eligible studies for this question. L‐ornithine L‐aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis (2018) · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| L‐ornithine L‐aspartate for prevention and treatment of hepatic encephalopathy in people with cirrhosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- L‐ornithine L‐aspartate vs rifaximin · people with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at… · 1 review
- L‐ornithine L‐aspartate vs lactulose · people with cirrhosis who had minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy or who were at… · 1 review
- L‐ornithine L‐aspartate vs placebo or no intervention · 1 review
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.