Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,320 questions · 4,561 findings · 388 reviews

No studies found 1,138 · 25%GRADE not reported 886 · 19.4%Very low 1,014 · 22.2%Low 849 · 18.6%Moderate 543 · 11.9%High 131 · 2.9%

Rinse‐free hand wash vs control

Absenteeism due to any illness (within the study period) Calculated as: an incident rate per child‐days possible Length of time observed: range = 1 to 11 months · children aged from birth to 14 years old

It is very uncertain whether rinse‐free hand wash changes absenteeism due to any illness (within the study period) Calculated… compared with control (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rinse‐free hand wash vs control

Adverse skin reactions (within the study period) Calculated as: number of events Length of time observed: range = 5 to 8 months · children aged from birth to 14 years old

It is very uncertain whether rinse‐free hand wash changes adverse skin reactions (within the study period) Calculated as:… compared with control (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rinse‐free hand wash vs control

Absenteeism due to acute respiratory illness (within the study period) Calculated as: an incident rate per child‐days possible Length of time observed: range = 1 to 8 months · children aged from birth to 14 years old

It is very uncertain whether rinse‐free hand wash changes absenteeism due to acute respiratory illness (within the study… compared with control (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rinse‐free hand wash vs control

Absenteeism due to acute gastrointestinal illness (within the study period) Calculated as: an incident rate per child‐days possible Length of time observed: range = 1 to 8 months · children aged from birth to 14 years old

Rinse‐free hand wash may leads to lower absenteeism due to acute gastrointestinal illness (within the study… compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Participant‐rated global assessment of treatment success · adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis who have not responded to non‐operative treatments

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Adverse events (total): · adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis who have not responded to non‐operative treatments

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes adverse events (total): (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Adverse events (serious ‐ resulting in hospitalisation or death) · adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis who have not responded to non‐operative treatments
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Revision, re‐operation, or treatment failure · adults aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis who have not responded to non‐operative treatments

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes revision, re‐operation, or treatment failure (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Usual care with ivabradine vs Placebo, no intervention or usual care (with or without placebo)

Cardiovascular mortality · adults (≥ 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)

Usual care with ivabradine showed no clear difference in mortality from cardiovascular causes ( compared with placebo, usual care, or no treatment (moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review