Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs no intervention
Depression · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 82 participantsVery low
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
536 questions · 579 findings · 94 reviews
No studies found 151 · 26.1%GRADE not reported 52 · 9%Very low 182 · 31.4%Low 120 · 20.7%Moderate 52 · 9%High 22 · 3.8%
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs no intervention
Anxiety (state) · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 82 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs no intervention
Anxiety (trait) · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 82 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Composite Primary Symptom Reduction Score (CPSR) Scale from: ‐100 to 100 Higher score = better · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 80 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Clinical response · people with irritable bowel syndrome
It is very uncertain whether multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) changes clinical response compared with attention control (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.1 [0.72, 1.69]2 studies · 80 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
QoL · people with irritable bowel syndrome
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Adverse events (AE) · people with irritable bowel syndrome
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
SAEs · people with irritable bowel syndrome
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Abdominal pain · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 80 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Depression · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 80 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Anxiety (state) · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 80 participantsVery low
Multi‐component psychological intervention (with biofeedback) vs attention control
Anxiety (trait) · people with irritable bowel syndrome
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 80 participantsVery low
Spinal manipulative therapy plus another intervention vs the intervention alone
Functional status at 3 to 6 months Oswestry Disability Index. Scale from: 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (worse function) · Patients with acute low‐back pain
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 225 participantsLow
Spinal manipulative therapy plus another intervention vs the intervention alone
Recovery at 3 to 6 months · Patients with acute low‐back pain
It is very uncertain whether spinal manipulative therapy plus another intervention changes recovery at 3 to 6 months compared with the intervention alone (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.75 [0.51, 1.1]2 studies · 195 participantsVery low
Spinal manipulative therapy plus another intervention vs the intervention alone
Serious adverse events · Patients with acute low‐back pain
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted2 studies · 2 participantsGRADE not reported
Physical ergonomic intervention vs alternative instrument design
Number of workers with newly diagnosed WMSD (incident cases) · Dentists and dental hygienists who performed scaling, root planing, or dental prophylaxis procedures
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Ergonomic interventions for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in dental care practitioners 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Physical ergonomic intervention vs alternative instrument design
Self‐reported complaints of MSD pain in right upper extremity – elbow, forearm (0‐ to 10‐point scale; 0 = no pain, 10 = unbearable pain) · Dentists and dental hygienists who performed scaling, root planing, or dental prophylaxis procedures
1 finding from 1 review
- Ergonomic interventions for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in dental care practitioners 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 108 participantsLow
Physical ergonomic intervention vs alternative instrument design
Pain in shoulder · Dentists and dental hygienists who performed scaling, root planing, or dental prophylaxis procedures
1 finding from 1 review
- Ergonomic interventions for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in dental care practitioners 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 108 participantsLow
Physical ergonomic intervention vs alternative instrument design
Work functioning or disability · Dentists and dental hygienists who performed scaling, root planing, or dental prophylaxis procedures
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Ergonomic interventions for preventing musculoskeletal disorders in dental care practitioners 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Primary care physician alerting system and a patient‐directed intervention (education and reminder to see their primary care physician) vs usual care
Osteoporosis medication 2 · General practitioners/family doctors involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis
Primary care physician alerting system and a patient‐directed… leads to higher osteoporosis medication 2 compared with standard care (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Professional interventions for general practitioners on the management of musculoskeletal conditions 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.71 [1.5, 1.94]5 studies · 4223 participantsHigh