Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

168 questions · 181 findings · 19 reviews

No studies found 63 · 34.8%GRADE not reported 49 · 27.1%Very low 39 · 21.5%Low 14 · 7.7%Moderate 11 · 6.1%High 5 · 2.8%

Summary of findings for combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing vs conventional treatment (separate testing)

Lung function(FEV1 or FVC L/min or % predicted) · adults and children with pulmonary exacerbation due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings for combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing vs conventional treatment (separate testing)

Length of hospital stay · adults and children with pulmonary exacerbation due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings for combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing vs conventional treatment (separate testing)

Sputum bacterial density (CFU/mL) · adults and children with pulmonary exacerbation due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings for combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing vs conventional treatment (separate testing)

All‐cause mortality · adults and children with pulmonary exacerbation due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs No photodynamic therapy (untreated negative control)

Microbial reduction (viable count, log CFU/mL) · Patients with dental caries (in vivo cariogenic microorganisms, including children with early childhood caries)

In randomized clinical trials, photodynamic therapy significantly reduced cariogenic microbial counts versus untreated control (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.30; 2 trials), but heterogeneity was high (I2=70%) and considered too high to rely on; certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs No photodynamic therapy (untreated negative control)

Microbial reduction (viable count, log CFU/mL) · Cariogenic bacteria (mainly Streptococcus mutans reference strains) and oral biofilms in vitro

In in vitro studies, photodynamic therapy significantly reduced cariogenic microbial counts versus untreated control (SMD -2.64, 95% CI -4.50 to -0.79; 2 studies; I2=0%); certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Quality of life · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Outcome not reported · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving supportive treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Outcome not reported · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… showed no clear difference in change in probing depth (PD/PPD) compared with submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Outcome not reported · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving supportive treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Any adverse effect related to aPDT · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Attachment change · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review