What do systematic reviews say?

Peribulbar vs retrobulbar

Peribulbar showed no clear difference in local complications ‐ Retrobular haemorrhage compared with retrobulbar (moderate certainty).

• Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.33 [0.01, 8.05]
  1 study · 142 participants
  Moderate

Peribulbar vs retrobulbar

Peribulbar probably leads to higher local complications ‐ Conjunctival chemosis presence of conjunctival… compared with retrobulbar (moderate certainty).

• Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.11 [1.46, 3.05]
  4 studies · 1042 participants
  Moderate

Peribulbar vs retrobulbar

Peribulbar showed no clear difference in local complications ‐ Ptosis compared with retrobulbar (moderate certainty).

• Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.06 [0.43, 2.6]
  1 study · 317 participants
  Moderate

Peribulbar vs retrobulbar

Peribulbar showed no clear difference in acceptability of blocks compared with retrobulbar (moderate certainty).

• Peribulbar versus retrobulbar anaesthesia for cataract surgery 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.03]
  2 studies · 600 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

The intervention leads to higher surgical site infection (all wound classifications) Inspection of… (high certainty).

• Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.23 [1.02, 1.48]
  5 studies · 3082 participants
  High

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in surgical site infection Inspection of the wound1 ( (moderate certainty).

• Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.03 [0.66, 1.6]
  2 studies · 1113 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes co‐operation during induction ‐ Video 'fairytale' vs. no audiovisual… (very low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.3 [0.87, 1.96]
  1 study · 120 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes co‐operation during induction ‐ 2 parents vs. 1 parent Poor… (very low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.88 [0.61, 5.72]
  1 study · 58 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 192 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes co‐operation during induction ‐ Parental presence vs. midazolam Poor… (very low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 12.47 [0.72, 216.2]
  1 study · 62 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes co‐operation during induction ‐ Low sensory stimulation vs. control… (very low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.66 [0.45, 0.95]
  1 study · 70 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes co‐operation during induction ‐ Mask introduction/exposure (Mask)… (very low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.27 [1.06, 1.51]
  1 study · 102 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 76 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 70 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes anxiety during induction ‐ hypnosis vs. midazolam (Interactive)… (very low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.59 [0.33, 1.04]
  1 study · 50 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 67 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher co‐operation during induction ‐ Acupuncture for parents Perfect… (low certainty).

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.59 [1.01, 2.53]
  1 study · 67 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 557 participants
  Very low

Case management vs usual care

Case management showed no clear difference in institutionalised (number of participants admitted to residential or… compared with usual care (low certainty).

• Case management approaches to home support for people with dementia 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.95 [0.83, 1.08]
  9 studies · 5990 participants
  Low

Case management vs usual care

• Case management approaches to home support for people with dementia 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 125 participants
  Low