Psychosocial interventions vs treatment
Longest period of abstinence · adults with stimulant use disorder
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 110 participantsLow
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
4,317 questions · 75,239 findings · 5,342 reviews
No studies found 15,213 · 20.2%GRADE not reported 10,323 · 13.7%Very low 17,528 · 23.3%Low 17,951 · 23.9%Moderate 11,190 · 14.9%High 3,034 · 4%
Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.
Psychosocial interventions vs treatment
Continuous abstinence longest · adults with stimulant use disorder
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Psychosocial interventions vs no intervention
Point abstinence (number of participants who were abstinent at the end of the treatment) · adults with stimulant use disorder
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in point abstinence, end of treatment compared with no intervention (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.15 [0.94, 1.41]12 studies · 1293 participantsHigh
Psychosocial interventions vs no intervention
Point prevalence abstinence at longest · adults with stimulant use disorder
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in point abstinence, longest compared with no intervention (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.22 [0.91, 1.62]9 studies · 1187 participantsHigh
Psychosocial interventions vs no intervention
Continuous abstinence rate at · adults with stimulant use disorder
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention probably leads to higher continuous abstinence, end of treatment compared with no intervention (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.89 [1.2, 2.97]12 studies · 1770 participantsModerate
Psychosocial interventions vs no intervention
Continuous abstinence longest · adults with stimulant use disorder
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in continuous abstinence, longest compared with no intervention (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.14 [0.85, 1.54]3 studies · 266 participantsLow
Psychosocial interventions vs no intervention
Frequency of drug intake, end of treatment · adults with stimulant use disorder
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted9 studies · 1186 participantsHigh
Psychosocial interventions vs no intervention
Longest period of abstinence · adults with stimulant use disorder
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted17 studies · 2118 participantsHigh
Psychosocial interventions vs treatment
Leaving the study early · adults with stimulant use disorder
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention leads to lower dropouts compared with treatment (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.79 [0.65, 0.97]9 studies · 735 participantsHigh
Psychosocial interventions vs treatment
Point abstinence (number of participants who were abstinent at the end of the treatment) · adults with stimulant use disorder
Summary of findings table ‐ Any psychosocial intervention showed no clear difference in point abstinence, end of treatment compared with treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.67 [0.64, 4.31]1 study · 128 participantsLow
Any transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair
Awareness of prolapse · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal permanent mesh probably leads to lower awareness of prolapse (0.5 to 7 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.83 [0.73, 0.95]17 studies · 2932 participantsModerate
Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair
Surgery for recurrent prolapse · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in surgery for recurrent prolapse (1 to 2 years) compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.15 [0.75, 1.77]6 studies · 899 participantsModerate
Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair
Prolapse on examination ‐ Any recurrent prolapse · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in recurrent prolapse on examination compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.96 [0.71, 1.29]9 studies · 1278 participantsLow
Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair
Visceral injury · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in visceral injury compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.34 [0.04, 3.26]2 studies · 254 participantsLow
Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair
Bladder function · vaginal prolapse
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes bladder function compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 12.64 [1.6, 100.06]2 studies · 143 participantsVery low
Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair
De novo dyspareunia (pain during sexual intercourse) review 1 to 3 years · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal biological graft showed no clear difference in painful intercourse ‐ de novo dyspareunia compared with native tissue repair (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.3 [0.46, 3.66]2 studies · 125 participantsModerate
Transvaginal biological graft vs native tissue repair
Quality of life · vaginal prolapse
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal biological graft changes quality of life compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted3 studies · 112 participantsVery low
Any transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair
Need for repeat surgery · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal permanent mesh may leads to higher repeat surgery (0.5 to 7 years) compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.56 [1.07, 2.26]27 studies · 3916 participantsLow
Any transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair
Prolapse on examination ‐ Any recurrent prolapse · vaginal prolapse
It is very uncertain whether transvaginal permanent mesh changes recurrent prolapse on examination (any compartment) compared with native tissue repair (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.42 [0.32, 0.55]25 studies · 3680 participantsVery low
Any transvaginal permanent mesh vs native tissue repair
Visceral injury · vaginal prolapse
Transvaginal permanent mesh may leads to higher visceral injury compared with native tissue repair (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 3.67 [1.63, 8.28]14 studies · 1997 participantsLow