Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

44 questions · 44 findings · 9 reviews

No studies found 27 · 61.4%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 9.1%Low 10 · 22.7%Moderate 3 · 6.8%High 0 · 0%

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Functional outcomes · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Unacceptable malunion · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures

Surgical interventions probably leads to lower unacceptable malunion Assessed by imaging compared with conservative interventions (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Serious adverse events · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures

Surgical interventions may leads to higher serious adverse events compared with conservative interventions (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Time to return to usual activities⁶(time to return to school) · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Child satisfaction Assessed by an ordinal rating scale (11 points): very unhappy to very happy · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Parent satisfaction Rated as excellent or good · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures

Surgical interventions may leads to higher parent satisfaction Rated as excellent or good compared with conservative interventions (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Resource use and other costs · Children and adolescents with femoral shaft fractures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-surgical interventions vs Surgical interventions

Outcome not reported · People with at least one dental implant affected by peri-implantitis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Patient quality of life · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Adverse effects on oral health · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Limitation of movement · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Development of TMD (onset/incidence of signs and symptoms) · People without TMD at baseline undergoing orthodontic treatment (TMD clinically absent at baseline); no age restriction provided follow-up…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Overall symptoms, pain and headache (relief from symptoms assessed by global measures) · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

DASH questionnaire (0 (best function) to 100 (worst function)) ‐ at 1 year · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Pain: presence of pain (slight or moderate) at 1 year · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera

It is very uncertain whether surgical intervention changes pain: presence of pain (slight or moderate) at 1 year compared with conservative intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Treatment failure requiring re‐intervention · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera

It is very uncertain whether surgical intervention changes treatment failure (usually requiring a subsequent operation) at 1 year compared with conservative intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Number of participants to return to work/sport ‐ at 1 year · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera

Surgical intervention showed no clear difference in number of participants to return to work/sport ‐ at 1 year compared with conservative intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Health‐related quality of life (physical) · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Participants with adverse events at 1 year · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera

It is very uncertain whether surgical intervention changes participants with adverse events at 1 year compared with conservative intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical interventions (exploration and decompression / external neurolysis, internal neurolysis, neurorrhaphy / direct repair, neuroma excision, anastomosis, autologous or allograft nerve grafting or tubulization) vs conservative interventions

Patient dissatisfaction with the cosmetic result at 1 yearh · adults with acute acromioclavicular dislocation of the shouldera

It is very uncertain whether surgical intervention changes patient dissatisfaction with the cosmetic result at 1 yearh compared with conservative intervention (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review