Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

260 questions · 304 findings · 27 reviews

No studies found 58 · 19.1%GRADE not reported 90 · 29.6%Very low 86 · 28.3%Low 45 · 14.8%Moderate 16 · 5.3%High 9 · 3%

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Multiple sites per tooth (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Smooth or secondary-caries surfaces (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Proximal surfaces (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Occlusal surfaces (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Group C other: family treatment vs enhanced care

Prodromal symptoms: transition to psychosis FACT Long‐term · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

It is very uncertain whether group C other: family treatment changes prodromal symptoms: transition to psychosis FACT Long‐term compared with enhanced care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Group C other: family treatment vs enhanced care

Global state: antipsychotic prescriptions (events) · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

It is very uncertain whether group C other: family treatment changes global state: antipsychotic prescriptions (events) compared with enhanced care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Group C other: family treatment vs enhanced care

Satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early FACT Long‐term · people in the prodromal stage of psychosis

It is very uncertain whether group C other: family treatment changes satisfaction with treatment: leaving the study early FACT Long‐term compared with enhanced care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Psychological therapy vs enhanced or structured care

Secondary outcome: acceptability of treatment · people with somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms

Psychological therapy showed no clear difference in acceptability 1 ‐ proportion of participants withdrawing during… compared with enhanced or structured care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review