Question · asked by 1 review
Summary of findings: ECM vs a different ECM: CFA: CFA (%)
- Population
- adults and children with cystic fibrosis
- Intervention
- Summary of findings: ECM
- Comparison
- a different ECM
- Outcome
- CFA: CFA (%)
Summary of findings: ECM (Creon®) showed no clear difference in CFA: CFA (%) compared with a different ECM (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: ECM (Creon®) vs a different ECM CFA: CFA (%) · children and adults with cystic fibrosis Summary of findings: ECM (Creon®) showed no clear difference in CFA: CFA (%) compared with a different ECM (moderate certainty). Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 1.35 | 2 studies · 110 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy for people with cystic fibrosis 2020 · 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.