Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

14 questions · 14 findings · 3 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 3 · 21.4%GRADE not reported 6 · 42.9%Very low 4 · 28.6%Low 1 · 7.1%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Rigid vs elastic brace (randomized controlled trial)

Quality of life · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Rigid vs elastic brace (randomized controlled trial)

Risk of success curves remaining below 50° · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

Rigid may leads to higher risk of success curves remaining below 50° compared with elastic brace (randomized controlled trial) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.4 [1.03, 1.89]
1 study · 43 participants
Low

Rigid vs elastic brace (randomized controlled trial)

Risk for at least one adverse event per patient · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Rigid vs elastic brace (randomized controlled trial)

Pulmonary disorders, disability, back pain, psychological issues, and cosmetic issues subjective or objective · adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis

1 finding from 1 review

Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Wound healing · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 56 participants
Very low

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Adverse events · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

It is very uncertain whether rigid dressings changes adverse events compared with soft dressings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.65 [0.32, 1.32]
6 studies · 336 participants
Very low

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Physical function ‐ Time from amputation to walking (days) · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 56 participants
Very low

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Length of hospital stay · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 56 participants
Very low

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Comfort · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Quality of life · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Rigid dressings vs soft dressings

Costs · people who had undergone transtibial amputations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Rigid dressings versus soft dressings for transtibial amputations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors

Prosthesis survival and crestal bone loss (5 years) · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
5 years
No significant differences between the two types of connectors with regard to prosthesis survival or crestal bone loss at 5 years (narrative)
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported

Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors

Natural tooth intrusion · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
5 years
Intrusion occurred in 44% of FDPs with rigid connectors and 66% with non-rigid connectors (average 0.18 mm and 0.28 mm respectively)
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported

Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors

Non-scheduled maintenance visits · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
5 years
70 non-scheduled maintenance visits to treat problems with rigid connectors compared to 110 visits for non-rigid connectors; unclear if this difference was considered significant
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported