Operating time · patients with lumbar stenosis
It is very uncertain whether SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR FUSION changes operation time Duration of operation reported in minutes compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Total operative and perioperative blood loss (mL) ( · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR FUSION probably leads to higher blood loss Amount of perioperative blood loss reported in mL compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Reoperation · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR FUSION showed no clear difference in reoperations Number of patients requiring a revision surgery compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in pain Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Pain scores converted to 0 to 100 scale… compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0… compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Operating time · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION may leads to higher operation time Duration of operation reported in minutes compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Total operative and perioperative blood loss (mL) ( · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in blood loss Amount of perioperative blood loss reported in mL compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
Non-specific immunotherapy (recombinant interleukin-2 or BCG cell… showed no clear difference in adverse effects compared with standard therapy alone; GRADE not reported.
9 findings from 1 review
RR 11.00 [0.67, 179.29]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 3.40 [0.15, 77.34]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.47 [0.75, 2.90]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 6 more findings
RR 0.57 [0.22, 1.50]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 0.67 [0.13, 3.30]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 0.38 [0.04, 3.26]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.24 [0.90, 1.70]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.71 [0.33, 8.83]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 5.00 [0.27, 94.34]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Adverse effects · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… led to higher adverse effects compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy); GRADE not reported.
9 findings from 1 review
RR 2.02 [1.23, 3.32]
1 study · 67 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.04 [0.98, 1.11]
1 study · 226 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 15.53 [2.18, 110.55]
1 study · 67 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 6 more findings
RR 6.57 [3.60, 12.00]
1 study · 191 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.22 [0.96, 1.56]
2 studies · 286 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.03 [0.94, 1.11]
2 studies · 286 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.03 [0.82, 1.28]
2 studies · 286 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.11 [0.83, 1.49]
3 studies · 484 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.25 [0.54, 2.88]
4 studies · 544 participants
GRADE not reported
Adverse effects · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
10 findings from 1 review
Mucositis all grades: not estimable due to high heterogeneity (P=0.0009; I2=86%) between subgroups (cetuximab; nimotuzumab) and within cetuximab (I2=93%); 1417 participants, 3 studies. Table 3, row 1.6 (Ang 2014;…
3 studies · 1417 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 6.56 [5.35, 8.03]
2 studies · 1311 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.36 [0.80, 2.31]
2 studies · 1311 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 7 more findings
Disease-free survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
It is very uncertain whether non-specific immunotherapy (recombinant interleukin-2 or BCG cell… changes disease-free survival compared with standard therapy alone (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Progression‐free survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard… showed no clear difference in progression-free survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy); GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Progression‐free survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes progression-free survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Participant satisfaction · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Costs (direct and indirect) · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Overall survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard… probably leads to lower overall survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overall survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
2 findings from 1 review
BCG-CWP + surgery versus surgery alone: 3-year overall survival 10/10 vs 9/10; too few participants to calculate a hazard ratio (Bier 1981, 24 participants).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
HR 0.52 [0.31, 0.87]
1 study · 201 participants
Very low
Overall survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes overall survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Disease-free survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes disease-free survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Locoregional control · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes locoregional control compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review