Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

449 questions · 486 findings · 74 reviews

No studies found 34 · 7%GRADE not reported 73 · 15%Very low 127 · 26.1%Low 158 · 32.5%Moderate 69 · 14.2%High 25 · 5.1%

Early enteral nutrition vs delayed enteral nutrition

Feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications (as defined by the authors) · critically ill adult patients

It is very uncertain whether early enteral nutrition changes feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications (as defined by… compared with delayed enteral nutrition (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 38% SDF solution (applied annually)

Caries arrest · Children with dentine carious lesions (ICDAS 4-5) in primary teeth

Twice-yearly 38% SDF was reported to arrest more caries than once-yearly application (24-month rates 91% vs 79%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Early removal of the LMA vs late removal of the LMA after general anaesthesia

Desaturation (immediate) · patients with general anaesthesia

It is very uncertain whether early removal of the LMA changes desaturation (immediate) compared with late removal of the LMA after general anaesthesia (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early removal of the LMA vs late removal of the LMA after general anaesthesia

Coughing (immediate) · patients with general anaesthesia

It is very uncertain whether early removal of the LMA changes coughing (immediate) compared with late removal of the LMA after general anaesthesia (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early childhood caries (ECC) vs Caries-free controls

Iron deficiency (as defined by trialists) · Preschool children (<6 years)

In a sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study, ECC remained associated with higher odds of iron deficiency (OR 2.76, 95% CI 2.42 to 3.13); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review