Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

284 questions · 338 findings · 43 reviews

No studies found 22 · 6.5%GRADE not reported 138 · 40.8%Very low 76 · 22.5%Low 66 · 19.5%Moderate 31 · 9.2%High 5 · 1.5%

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

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Small for gestational age: OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.67), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Pre‐eclampsia · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Pre-eclampsia: OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Head circumference (mm) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Head circumference: WMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.34), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Birth length · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth length: WMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.65), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Birthweight (g) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth weight: WMD 130.9 (95% CI 75.1 to 186.7), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Probable.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Gestational diabetes · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Gestational diabetes: OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.85), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher drinking-water fluoride exposure vs Lower water fluoride concentration (concurrent control)

Dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern (Dean's Index, TFI, TSIF) · Populations of all ages (mostly children) exposed to drinking water with differing fluoride concentrations

Higher water fluoride concentration (fluoridated water; natural or… may leads to higher dental fluorosis of aesthetic concern (Dean's Index, TFI, TSIF) compared with lower water fluoride concentration (concurrent control) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review