evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,486 questions · 2,727 findings · 268 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 600 · 22%GRADE not reported 229 · 8.4%Very low 789 · 28.9%Low 707 · 25.9%Moderate 314 · 11.5%High 88 · 3.2%

Lay health worker‐led interventions for adult patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol or substance use vs enhanced usual care

Quality of life · adult patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol or substance use

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lay health worker‐led interventions for adult patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol or substance use vs enhanced usual care

Service utilisation ‐ unplanned hospitalisations (1 to 6 months post intervention) (RR < 1 denotes lower risk) · adult patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol or substance use

It is very uncertain whether lay health worker‐led interventions for adult patients with harmful… changes service utilisation ‐ unplanned hospitalisations (1 to 6 months post… compared with enhanced usual care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lay health worker‐led interventions for adult patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol or substance use vs enhanced usual care

Adverse events ‐ death in past 12 months (RR > 1 denotes higher risk of death) · adult patients with harmful or hazardous alcohol or substance use

It is very uncertain whether lay health worker‐led interventions for adult patients with harmful… changes adverse events ‐ deaths (RR < 1 denotes lower risk) compared with enhanced usual care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care

Health status (a) Patient‐reported high self‐rated health at 6 months after baseline CDC Healthy Days Measure (CDC 2000): dichotomised as low (1 to 3) and high (4 to 5) · older patients with multi‐morbidity

It is very uncertain whether interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in… changes health status (a) Patient‐reported high self‐rated health at 6… compared with usual care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care

Patient enablement and engagement (b) Morisky Medication Adherence Scale at 15 months after baseline (8‐item yes‐no survey. Range of scores from 0 to 8. Lower scores suggest non‐adherence) (Morisky 2008) · older patients with multi‐morbidity
1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care

Participants' evaluation of the intervention · older patients with multi‐morbidity

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in… probably leads to higher patient evaluation of care/the intervention Care related to patient… compared with usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care

Practitioners' knowledge and skills Not measured · older patients with multi‐morbidity

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care

Resource use and cost Number of nurse consultations at 15 months after baseline (extracted from patients’ routine electronic medical records) · older patients with multi‐morbidity

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in… probably leads to higher resource use and cost Number of nurse consultations at 15 months… compared with usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care

Adverse event** Less patient involvement as a result of the intervention Not measured · older patients with multi‐morbidity

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Folic Acid, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12) vs placebo or usual care

Myocardial infarction · people with or without existing cardiovascular disease, men and women

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine;… showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction compared with placebo or standard care (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Folic Acid, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12) vs placebo or usual care

Stroke · people with or without existing cardiovascular disease, men and women

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine;… leads to lower stroke compared with placebo or standard care (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Folic Acid, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12) vs placebo or usual care

Death by any cause · people with or without existing cardiovascular disease, men and women

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine;… showed no clear difference in death by any cause compared with placebo or standard care (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Folic Acid, Vitamin B6 and Vitamin B12) vs placebo or usual care

Adverse events · people with or without existing cardiovascular disease, men and women

Homocysteine‐lowering interventions (Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine;… showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with placebo or standard care (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Self-efficacy related to oral health · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based educational interventions significantly improved oral health self-efficacy (SMD 1.49; low certainty), though between-study heterogeneity was very high.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health attitude (SMD 9.32; low certainty); the very large effect warrants cautious interpretation.

1 finding from 1 review