Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,809 questions · 1,956 findings · 194 reviews

No studies found 422 · 21.6%GRADE not reported 427 · 21.8%Very low 353 · 18%Low 397 · 20.3%Moderate 293 · 15%High 64 · 3.3%

Oral long‐chain omega‐3 PUFAs vs placebo or no treatment

Change in ocular surface staining at 1‐month (with actual · people with dry eyea

Oral long‐chain omega‐3 PUFAs (ie, EPA and DHA) showed no clear difference in change in ocular surface staining at 1‐month (with actual compared with placebo or no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral long‐chain omega‐3 PUFAs vs placebo or no treatment

Change in tear osmolarity (measured in mOsmol/L, with reductions in osmolarity indicating clinical improvement) at 1‐month (with actual · people with dry eyea

Oral long‐chain omega‐3 PUFAs (ie, EPA and DHA) showed no clear difference in change in tear osmolarity (measured in mOsmol/L, with reductions in… compared with placebo or no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis

Major bleeding · patients with active cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis

Minor bleeding · patients with active cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonist secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

All‐cause mortality · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Recurrent VTE · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis may leads to lower recurrent VTE compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major upper GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes major upper GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major lower GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes major lower GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major non‐GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes major non‐GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis probably leads to higher minor bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes minor GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor upper GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes minor upper GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor lower GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor lower GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review