evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,509 questions · 2,666 findings · 288 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 743 · 27.9%GRADE not reported 327 · 12.3%Very low 775 · 29.1%Low 484 · 18.2%Moderate 279 · 10.5%High 58 · 2.2%

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Resectability · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Quality of life · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Adverse events · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Complete remission · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Partial reduction · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Recurrence · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention (with or without analgesics) vs Matched placebo without surgical intervention (with or without analgesics)

Outcome not reported · Adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs medical treatment

Death or severe disability (mRS > 4) at 6 to 12 months · malignant cerebral oedema after ischaemic stroke

Summary of findings table ‐ surgical decompression leads to lower death or severe disability (mRS > 4) at 6 to 12 months compared with medical treatment alone (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs medical treatment

Death or moderate disability (mRS > 3) at 6 to 12 months · malignant cerebral oedema after ischaemic stroke

Summary of findings table ‐ surgical decompression probably leads to lower death or moderate disability (mRS > 3) at 6 to 12 months compared with medical treatment alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs medical treatment

Severe disability (mRS = 5) at 6 to 12 months · malignant cerebral oedema after ischaemic stroke

Summary of findings table ‐ surgical decompression showed no clear difference in severe disability (mRS = 5) at 6 to 12 months compared with medical treatment alone (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review