Number of participants experiencing any serious adverse events · health problem or population
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
1 study · 1 participants
Very low
At least 50% reduction in pain · health problem or population
It is very uncertain whether summary of Findings Table ‐ Ibuprofen 300 mg changes number of participants with at least 50% pain relief at 4 hours compared with active comparator (acetaminophen) (very low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Number of participants using rescue medication over 4 to 6 hours postinterventions · health problem or population
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
All intervention options · people with first recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV), BEV + lomustine (LOM), regorafenib (REG), fotemustine…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
BEV+IRI (1 RCT, 79 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention leads to higher BEV+IRI (1 RCT, 79 participants) (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV+VB111 (1 RCT, 128 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention leads to higher BEV+VB111 (1 RCT, 128 participants) (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV+TRC 105 (1 RCT, 49 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention leads to higher BEV+TRC 105 (1 RCT, 49 participants) (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
All intervention options · people with first recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV), BEV + lomustine (LOM), regorafenib (REG), BEV + irinotecan…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Outcomes (5 RCTs, 1024 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV(8 RCTs; 498 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
FOM (1 RCT, 32 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention showed no clear difference in FOM (1 RCT, 32 participants); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV+HSPPC96 1 RCTs; 53 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+HSPPC96 1 RCTs; 53 participants) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV+ONA(1 RCT; 64 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+ONA(1 RCT; 64 participants) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV+CAB (1 RCT; 58 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+CAB (1 RCT; 58 participants) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
BEV+DAS (2 RCTs, 83 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…
The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+DAS (2 RCTs, 83 participants) (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
Oral misoprostol may leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared with vaginal dinoprostone (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Oxytocin augmentation · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol changes oxytocin augmentation compared with vaginal dinoprostone (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
Oral misoprostol probably leads to lower uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes compared with vaginal dinoprostone (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in apgar score less than seven at five minutes compared with vaginal dinoprostone (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Admission to neonatal intensive care unit · women in the third trimester for induction of labour.
Oral misoprostol showed no clear difference in admission to neonatal intensive care unit compared with vaginal dinoprostone (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review