Treatment time: time from surgical exposure to eruption/bonding a bracket · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)
Open surgical exposure led to lower treatment time: time from surgical exposure to eruption/bonding a… compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Functional outcomes · (mainly older) adults with most types of displaced proximal humeral fracturesa (10 trials)
Surgical showed no clear difference in functional scoresf(higher = better outcome) compared with non‐surgical treatment (high certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
SMD 0.06
5 studies · 423 participants
High
SMD 0.1
7 studies · 552 participants
High
SMD 0.17
3 studies · 347 participants
Moderate
Quality of life: EQ‐5D (0: dead to 1: best quality of life) · (mainly older) adults with most types of displaced proximal humeral fracturesa (10 trials)
Surgical showed no clear difference in quality of life: EQ‐5D (0: dead to 1: best quality of life) compared with non‐surgical treatment (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
All‐cause mortality · (mainly older) adults with most types of displaced proximal humeral fracturesa (10 trials)
Surgical showed no clear difference in mortality compared with non‐surgical treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Reoperation · (mainly older) adults with most types of displaced proximal humeral fracturesa (10 trials)
Surgical may leads to higher additional surgery (reoperation or secondary surgery) compared with non‐surgical treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events / complications ‐ Number of participants with complications · (mainly older) adults with most types of displaced proximal humeral fracturesa (10 trials)
Surgical showed no clear difference in adverse events / complications ‐ Number of participants with… compared with non‐surgical treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Function (overall) Various tools · adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with acute middle third clavicle fractures
1 finding from 1 review
Pain intensity VAS (0 to 100; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) · adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with acute middle third clavicle fractures
1 finding from 1 review
Treatment failure (indication for non‐routine secondary surgery) · adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with acute middle third clavicle fractures
Surgical may leads to lower treatment failuref Indication for non‐routine secondary surgery compared with conservative interventions (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Cosmetic problemi · adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with acute middle third clavicle fractures
It is very uncertain whether surgical changes cosmetic problemi compared with conservative interventions (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Total of participants with adverse event outcomel · adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with acute middle third clavicle fractures
It is very uncertain whether surgical changes total of participants with adverse event outcomel compared with conservative interventions (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Health‐related quality of life (physical) · adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with acute middle third clavicle fractures
1 finding from 1 review
Short‐term mortality All‐cause mortality either in‐hospital or within 3 months · patients with oesophageal cancer
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes short‐term mortality All‐cause mortality either in‐hospital or… compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (primary outcomes) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Local recurrence · patients with oesophageal cancer
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes local recurrence (binary) compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (secondary outcomes) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Proportion with any adverse event within 3 months Any adverse event within 3 months of any severity · patients with oesophageal cancer
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes proportion with any adverse event within 3 months Any adverse event… compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (secondary outcomes) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Dysphagia · patients with oesophageal cancer
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes dysphagia at maximal compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (secondary outcomes) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Long‐term mortality (binary outcome) All‐cause mortality for the duration of · patients with oesophageal cancer
Non‐surgical showed no clear difference in long‐term mortality (binary outcome) All‐cause mortality for the… compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (primary outcomes) (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Long‐term mortality (time‐to‐event outcome): chemoradiotherapy versus surgery All‐cause mortality for the duration of · patients with oesophageal cancer
Non‐surgical showed no clear difference in long‐term mortality (time‐to‐event outcome): chemoradiotherapy… compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (primary outcomes) (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Long‐term mortality (time‐to‐event outcome): radiotherapy versus surgery All‐cause mortality for the duration of · patients with oesophageal cancer
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes long‐term mortality (time‐to‐event outcome): radiotherapy versus… compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (primary outcomes) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Proportion of participants with 1 or more serious adverse events according to International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH‐GCP) · patients with oesophageal cancer
It is very uncertain whether non‐surgical changes proportion with a serious adverse event within 3 months Serious… compared with surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer (primary outcomes) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review