Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

577 questions · 585 findings · 57 reviews

No studies found 61 · 10.4%GRADE not reported 46 · 7.9%Very low 206 · 35.2%Low 210 · 35.9%Moderate 52 · 8.9%High 10 · 1.7%

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs placebo

Normalcy of diet (total parenteral nutrition) · Adults with cancer receiving treatment

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin),… showed no clear difference in normalcy of diet (total parenteral nutrition) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Epidermal growth factor (EGF), oral spray vs placebo

Normalcy of diet (total parenteral nutrition) · Adults with cancer receiving treatment

Epidermal growth factor (EGF), oral spray showed no clear difference in normalcy of diet (total parenteral nutrition) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Normalcy of diet (total parenteral nutrition) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes normalcy of diet (days of total parenteral nutrition, TPN) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Alternative lipid emulsion (LE) vs S‐LE

Rate of weight gain (g/kg/day) · Parenterally fed preterm infants
2 findings from 2 reviews · compare the 2 reviews

Alternative lipid emulsion (LE) vs S‐LE

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung disease · Parenterally fed preterm infants

Alternative lipid emulsion (LE) showed no clear difference in any BPD – OS‐LE vs S‐LE (sensitivity analysis) compared with soybean oil‐based LE (S‐LE) (low certainty).

2 findings from 2 reviews · compare the 2 reviews

Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

Technical success in insertion

Electromagnetic‐guided showed no clear difference in technical success in insertion compared with endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

Aspiration pneumonitis

Electromagnetic‐guided showed no clear difference in aspiration pneumonitis compared with endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Electromagnetic‐guided vs endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes

Adverse events

Electromagnetic‐guided showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with endoscopic‐guided postpyloric placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Slow vs faster rates of enteral feed advancement

Necrotising enterocolitis · very preterm or very low birth weight infants

Slow showed no clear difference in necrotising enterocolitis before hospital discharge compared with faster rates of enteral feed advancement (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Slow vs faster rates of enteral feed advancement

Mortality before hospital discharge · very preterm or very low birth weight infants

Slow showed no clear difference in mortality before hospital discharge compared with faster rates of enteral feed advancement (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Slow vs faster rates of enteral feed advancement

Invasive infection (before hospital discharge) · very preterm or very low birth weight infants

Slow showed no clear difference in invasive infection before hospital discharge compared with faster rates of enteral feed advancement (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review