What do systematic reviews say?

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention vs regular salt

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention changes cardiovascular events: various compared with regular salt (very low certainty).

• Replacing salt with low‐sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) for cardiovascular health in adults, children and pregnant women 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.22 [0.49, 3.04]
  5 studies · 982 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention vs regular salt

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention showed no clear difference in cardiovascular events: non‐fatal stroke compared with regular salt (moderate certainty).

• Replacing salt with low‐sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) for cardiovascular health in adults, children and pregnant women 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.9 [0.8, 1.01]
  3 studies · 21250 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention vs regular salt

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention probably leads to lower cardiovascular events: non‐fatal acute coronary syndrome (events per… compared with regular salt (moderate certainty).

• Replacing salt with low‐sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) for cardiovascular health in adults, children and pregnant women 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  Rate ratio 0.7 [0.52, 0.94]
  1 study · 20995 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention vs regular salt

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention showed no clear difference in cardiovascular mortality (events per 100,000 person‐years) compared with regular salt (moderate certainty).

• Replacing salt with low‐sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) for cardiovascular health in adults, children and pregnant women 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  Rate ratio 0.77 [0.6, 1]
  3 studies · 23200 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention vs regular salt

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ LSSS intervention changes stroke mortality (events per 100,000 person‐years) compared with regular salt (very low certainty).

• Replacing salt with low‐sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) for cardiovascular health in adults, children and pregnant women 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  Rate ratio 0.64 [0.33, 1.25]
  2 studies · 21423 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 0.62 [0.21, 1.88]
  2 studies · 204 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-18 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 11.32 [1.97, 65.02]
  2 studies · 179 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6-36 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 4.43 [1.04, 18.77]
  4 studies · 265 participants
  Very low

Sealing using sealant materials vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

It is very uncertain whether sealing using sealant materials changes failure of therapy compared with selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  18-24 months · Cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  OR 3.11 [0.11, 85.52]
  2 studies · 82 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) probably leads to higher failure of therapy compared with stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6-60 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 2.06 [1.34, 3.17]
  3 studies · 398 participants
  Moderate
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 2.43 [0.65, 9.12]
  1 study · 63 participants
  Very low

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

It is very uncertain whether selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) changes failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24-36 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 1.95 [0.57, 6.63]
  1 study · 72 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months · Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 8.94 [0.57, 139.67]
  2 studies · 586 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) may leads to higher failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30-60 months · Cavitated (not deep) lesions, primary dentition
  OR 8.35 [3.73, 18.68]
  2 studies · 249 participants
  Low

Any of the interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing with sealant materials, Hall Technique, or NRCC) vs Each other, placebo, or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported adverse effects.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Permanent and primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: SE found more cost-effective than SW in permanent (Labib 2019) and primary teeth (Elhennawy 2021); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Any of the interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing with sealant materials, Hall Technique, or NRCC) vs Each other, placebo, or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  We found no studies reporting subjective evaluation of the treatments by participants.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sealing using sealant materials vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Dias 2018 1/27 sealed vs 1/21 SE at 24 months; Hesse 2014 0/17 sealed vs 0/17 SE at 18 months; not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) probably leads to higher failure of therapy compared with stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-60 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 2.25 [1.33, 3.82]
  3 studies · 371 participants
  Moderate
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-24 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 2.05 [0.49, 8.62]
  2 studies · 126 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than CR in primary teeth (Innes 2011; Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Ribeiro 1999 found 6/24 lesions progressed after 12 months; not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Continuous infusion vs forced (or pulse) infusion of thrombolytic agents

• Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 304 participants
  Very low

Continuous infusion vs forced (or pulse) infusion of thrombolytic agents

• Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 164 participants
  Very low

Continuous infusion vs forced (or pulse) infusion of thrombolytic agents

• Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 304 participants
  Very low