Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

258 questions · 305 findings · 33 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 66 · 21.6%GRADE not reported 45 · 14.8%Very low 85 · 27.9%Low 58 · 19%Moderate 37 · 12.1%High 14 · 4.6%

BRAF inhibitors vs chemotherapy alone

Tumour response · people with cutaneous melanoma

BRAF inhibitors leads to higher tumour response compared with chemotherapy (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 6.78 [4.84, 9.49]
925 participants
High

Anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies vs chemotherapy alone

Progression‐free survival · people with cutaneous melanoma

Anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies probably leads to lower progression‐free survival† compared with chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.49 [0.39, 0.61]
957 participants
Moderate

BRAF inhibitors vs chemotherapy alone

Toxicity (≥ G3) · people with cutaneous melanoma

BRAF inhibitors showed no clear difference in toxicity (≥ G3) compared with chemotherapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.27 [0.48, 3.33]
408 participants
Low

MEK inhibitors vs chemotherapy alone

Overall survival† · people with cutaneous melanoma

MEK inhibitors showed no clear difference in overall survival† compared with chemotherapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.85 [0.58, 1.25]
496 participants
Low

MEK inhibitors vs chemotherapy alone

Progression‐free survival · people with cutaneous melanoma

MEK inhibitors probably leads to lower progression‐free survival† compared with chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.58 [0.42, 0.8]
496 participants
Moderate

MEK inhibitors vs chemotherapy alone

Tumour response · people with cutaneous melanoma

MEK inhibitors leads to higher tumour response compared with chemotherapy (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.01 [1.35, 2.99]
496 participants
High

MEK inhibitors vs chemotherapy alone

Toxicity (≥ G3) · people with cutaneous melanoma

MEK inhibitors probably leads to higher toxicity (≥ G3) compared with chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.61 [1.08, 2.41]
91 participants
Moderate

Anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies vs chemotherapy alone

Tumour response · people with cutaneous melanoma

Anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies leads to higher tumour response compared with chemotherapy (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 3.42 [2.38, 4.92]
1367 participants
High

Anti‐PD1 monoclonal antibodies vs chemotherapy alone

Toxicity (≥ G3) · people with cutaneous melanoma

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
0.55 [0.31, 0.97]
1360 participants
Low

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen vs any other dressing regimen

Time to complete healing · people with venous leg ulcers

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen showed no clear difference in TIme to complete healing compared with any other dressing regimen (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Protease‐modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 1.21 [0.74, 1.97]
1 study · 100 participants
Low

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen vs any other dressing regimen

Proportion of participants with healed ulcers at 6 weeks · people with venous leg ulcers

It is very uncertain whether protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen changes proportion of participants healed ‐ short term (4‐8 weeks) compared with any other dressing regimen (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Protease‐modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.73 [0.34, 1.58]
2 studies · 207 participants
Very low

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen vs any other dressing regimen

Proportion of participants with healed ulcers at 12 weeks · people with venous leg ulcers

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen showed no clear difference in proportion of participants healed ‐ medium term (12 weeks) compared with any other dressing regimen (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Protease‐modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.28 [0.95, 1.71]
4 studies · 192 participants
Low

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen vs any other dressing regimen

Proportion of participants healed ‐ long term (over 24 weeks) · people with venous leg ulcers

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen showed no clear difference in proportion of participants healed ‐ long term (over 24 weeks) compared with any other dressing regimen (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Protease‐modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.06 [0.8, 1.41]
1 study · 100 participants
Low

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen vs any other dressing regimen

Proportion of participants with 1 or more adverse events at 2‐12 weeks · people with venous leg ulcers

Protease‐modulating matrix dressing regimen showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with 1 or more adverse events at 2‐12 weeks compared with any other dressing regimen (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Protease‐modulating matrix treatments for healing venous leg ulcers 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.03 [0.75, 1.42]
5 studies · 363 participants
Low

Adjunct cognitive behavioural therapy vs adjunct supportive psychotherapy

Global State: clinically important improvement · patients with delusional disorder

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Treatments for delusional disorder 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Adjunct cognitive behavioural therapy vs adjunct supportive psychotherapy

Mental state: Delusions ‐ clinically significant improvement · patients with delusional disorder

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Treatments for delusional disorder 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Adjunct cognitive behavioural therapy vs adjunct supportive psychotherapy

Depressive symptoms · patients with delusional disorder

1 finding from 1 review

Treatments for delusional disorder 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 17 participants
Low

Adjunct cognitive behavioural therapy vs adjunct supportive psychotherapy

Anxiety · patients with delusional disorder

1 finding from 1 review

Treatments for delusional disorder 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 17 participants
Low

Adjunct cognitive behavioural therapy vs adjunct supportive psychotherapy

Service use: Admitted · patients with delusional disorder

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Treatments for delusional disorder 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Adjunct cognitive behavioural therapy vs adjunct supportive psychotherapy

Social function: Self worth ‐ average score Social Self‐Esteem Inventory · patients with delusional disorder

1 finding from 1 review

Treatments for delusional disorder 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 17 participants
Very low