Saline irrigation plus pharmacological treatment vs pharmacological treatment alone
Other adverse effects: local irritation · allergic rhinitis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedVery low
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
135 questions · 137 findings · 14 reviews
No studies found 40 · 29.2%GRADE not reported 16 · 11.7%Very low 44 · 32.1%Low 27 · 19.7%Moderate 10 · 7.3%High 0 · 0%
Saline irrigation plus pharmacological treatment vs pharmacological treatment alone
Disease severity score (up to 4 weeks) · allergic rhinitis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedVery low
Saline irrigation plus pharmacological treatment vs pharmacological treatment alone
Disease severity score (4 weeks to 6 months) · allergic rhinitis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedVery low
Does normal saline flushing in long‐term central venous catheters (CVC) prevent occlusion vs heparin flushing
CVC occlusion rate per 1000 catheter days Ability to infuse solution through CVC · infants and children with a long‐term CVC
It is very uncertain whether does normal saline flushing in long‐term central venous catheters… changes CVC occlusion rate per 1000 catheter days: ability to infuse… compared with heparin flushing (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Normal saline (0.9% sodium chloride) versus heparin intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long‐term… 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRate ratio 0.75 [0.1, 5.51]2 studies · 229 participantsVery low
Does normal saline flushing in long‐term central venous catheters (CVC) prevent occlusion vs heparin flushing
CVC‐associated blood stream infection rate per 1000 catheter days Incidence of positive blood culture · infants and children with a long‐term CVC
Does normal saline flushing in long‐term central venous catheters… showed no clear difference in CVC‐associated blood stream infection rate per 1000 catheter days:… compared with heparin flushing (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Normal saline (0.9% sodium chloride) versus heparin intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long‐term… 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRate ratio 1.48 [0.24, 9.37]2 studies · 231 participantsLow
Does normal saline flushing in long‐term central venous catheters (CVC) prevent occlusion vs heparin flushing
Duration of CVC placement (days) · infants and children with a long‐term CVC
1 finding from 1 review
- Normal saline (0.9% sodium chloride) versus heparin intermittent flushing for the prevention of occlusion in long‐term… 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted1 study · 203 participantsModerate
Ear drops (water or saline) vs no treatment
Proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax · adults and children with ear wax requiring removal
Ear drops (water or saline) may leads to higher proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax compared with no treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 41 study · 48 participantsLow
Ear drops (water or saline) vs no treatment
Discomfort/pain · adults and children with ear wax requiring removal
Ear drops (water or saline) may leads to lower adverse effects: discomfort, irritation or pain compared with no treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedLow
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Resolution or improvement of telangiectasias ( · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 348 participantsModerate
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Adverse events ‐ hyperpigmentation ( · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) probably leads to lower adverse events ‐ hyperpigmentation ( compared with sclerotherapy (any sclerosant) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.74 [0.59, 0.93]2 studies · 288 participantsModerate
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Adverse events ‐ matting ( · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) showed no clear difference in adverse events ‐ matting ( compared with sclerotherapy (any sclerosant) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.89 [0.58, 1.36]2 studies · 288 participantsModerate
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Pain ( · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 348 participantsModerate
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Recurrence · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Time to resolution · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Sclerotherapy (hypertonic saline) vs sclerotherapy (any sclerosant)
Quality of life · people with telangiectasias and reticular veins
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found