Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

901 questions · 1,073 findings · 138 reviews

No studies found 166 · 15.5%GRADE not reported 310 · 28.9%Very low 213 · 19.9%Low 227 · 21.2%Moderate 132 · 12.3%High 25 · 2.3%

Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration

Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART with high-viscosity GIC and amalgam had similar class I restoration success at 24 months (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 2-year survival (62%, 95% CI 51-73%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 1-year survival (86%, 95% CI 59-98%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

All‐cause mortality up to 30 days · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality up to 30 days compared with low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

All‐cause mortality up to 120 days · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) changes all‐cause mortality up to 120 days compared with low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

Clinical improvement: discharged alive ( · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) showed no clear difference in clinical improvement: discharged alive ( compared with low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

Clinical worsening: need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death at up to day 28 · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Colorectal cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Colorectal cancer: OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.73), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Breast cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Breast cancer: OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.44), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Colon cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Colon cancer: OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.35), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Aggressive prostate cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Aggressive prostate cancer: OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.17), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration vs Lower circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) concentration

Prostate cancer · Adults (general population)

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower 1,25(OH)2D) for Prostate cancer: OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

Discomfort associated with the procedure · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in participant experience (discomfort during procedure) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

Pain (during procedure, primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in pain (during procedure, primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review