WC‐rBS vaccine (Dukoral): two doses ± booster dose vs placebo
Cases of cholera ( · healthy children and adults; high risk population
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 16423 participantsHigh
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
1,444 questions · 1,518 findings · 135 reviews · Infectious Diseases
No studies found 135 · 8.9%GRADE not reported 150 · 9.9%Very low 350 · 23.1%Low 420 · 27.7%Moderate 321 · 21.1%High 142 · 9.4%
BivWC vaccine (Shanchol): two doses vs placebo
Cases of cholera ( · healthy children and adults; high risk population
3 findings from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 54519 participantsHigh
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 168540 participantsModerate
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 241631 participantsHigh
BivWC vaccine (Shanchol): single dose vs placebo
Cases of cholera ( · healthy children and adults, male and female; high risk population
2 findings from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 204700 participantsHigh
- no estimate extracted1 study · 204700 participantsHigh
BivWC vaccine (Shanchol): single dose vs placebo
Cases of severe dehydrating cholera ( · healthy children and adults, male and female; high risk population
2 findings from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 204700 participantsHigh
- no estimate extracted1 study · 204700 participantsHigh
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
All‐cause mortality – at 28 to 30 days, or in‐hospital · people with confirmed COVID‐19
It is very uncertain whether favipiravir changes all‐cause mortality – at 28 to 30 days, or in‐hospital compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.84 [0.49, 1.46]11 studies · 3459 participantsVery low
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
Clinical worsening: need for invasive mechanical ventilation up to 14 days  · people with confirmed COVID‐19
It is very uncertain whether favipiravir changes progression to invasive mechanical ventilation compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.86 [0.68, 1.09]8 studies · 1383 participantsVery low
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
Need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) · people with confirmed COVID‐19
Favipiravir showed no clear difference in need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.04 [0.44, 2.46]4 studies · 670 participantsLow
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
Time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2‐point reduction in patients’ admission status on WHO’s ordinal scale) · people with confirmed COVID‐19
It is very uncertain whether favipiravir changes time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2‐point reduction… compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- HR 1.13 [0.69, 1.83]4 studies · 721 participantsVery low
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
Progression to oxygen therapy · people with confirmed COVID‐19
Favipiravir showed no clear difference in progression to oxygen therapy compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.2 [0.83, 1.75]2 studies · 543 participantsLow
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
All adverse events · people with confirmed COVID‐19
Favipiravir may leads to higher all adverse events compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.27 [1.05, 1.54]18 studies · 4699 participantsLow
Favipiravir vs no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment
Serious adverse events attributable to the drug · people with confirmed COVID‐19
Favipiravir showed no clear difference in serious adverse events attributable to the drug compared with no treatment, supportive treatment, or other antiviral treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.04 [0.76, 1.42]12 studies · 3317 participantsLow
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments
Virologically confirmed dengue case incidence (any severity, any phenotype) · children and adults at risk of dengue infection
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Wolbachia ‐carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments
Prevalence of DENV infection (any severity, any phenotype)a · children and adults at risk of dengue infection
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments probably leads to lower prevalence of DENV infection (any severity, any phenotype)a compared with no deployments (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Wolbachia ‐carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyOR 0.23 [0.15, 0.35]6306 participantsModerate
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments
Prevalence of dengue RNA in the mosquito population · children and adults at risk of dengue infection
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Wolbachia ‐carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments
Mosquito density (for population suppression strategy) · children and adults at risk of dengue infection
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Wolbachia ‐carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments
Prevalence of Wolbachia‐carrying mosquitoes (for population replacement strategy) · children and adults at risk of dengue infection
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Wolbachia ‐carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
wMel‐Wolbachia infected Aedes aegypti deployments vs no deployments
Adverse events potentially related to Wolbachia‐carrying Aedes deployments · children and adults at risk of dengue infection
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Wolbachia ‐carrying Aedes mosquitoes for preventing dengue infection 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Intervention not reported
Cluster‐RCTs · adults and children
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Intervention not reported
Cluster‐RCTs · adults and children
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Intervention not reported
Diarrhoea prevalence (Children < 5a) · adults and children
The intervention probably leads to lower diarrhoea prevalence (Children < 5a) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.82 [0.69, 0.98]7 studies · 28909 participantsModerate