Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,752 questions · 6,648 findings · 688 reviews

No studies found 1,125 · 16.9%GRADE not reported 670 · 10.1%Very low 1,796 · 27%Low 1,685 · 25.3%Moderate 1,075 · 16.2%High 297 · 4.5%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: primary outcomes

CMV infection · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) probably leads to lower CMV infection compared with antimetabolites: primary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: primary outcomes

Wound complications · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) probably leads to higher adverse wound outcomes: all complications compared with antimetabolites: primary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: primary outcomes

All malignancies · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) showed no clear difference in all malignancies compared with antimetabolites: primary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: primary outcomes

Number needing to change treatment · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) probably leads to higher number needing to change treatment compared with antimetabolites: primary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: secondary outcomes

New onset of diabetes · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) probably leads to higher new‐onset diabetes mellitus compared with antimetabolites: secondary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: secondary outcomes

BK virus infection · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) leads to lower BK virus infection compared with antimetabolites: secondary outcomes (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: secondary outcomes

Hypercholesterolaemia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) may leads to higher hypercholesterolaemia compared with antimetabolites: secondary outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: secondary outcomes

Hypertriglyceridaemia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) probably leads to higher hypertriglyceridaemia compared with antimetabolites: secondary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: secondary outcomes

Leucopenia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) may leads to lower leucopenia compared with antimetabolites: secondary outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) vs antimetabolites: secondary outcomes

Thrombocytopenia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Target of rapamycin inhibitors (TOR‐I) may leads to higher thrombocytopenia compared with antimetabolites: secondary outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Visual acuity · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
2 findings from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Ocular alignment (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 24 months, or cessation of treatment) and by the proportions of participants who developed strabismus, showed chang... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Stereo acuity (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks, 6 months, 2 years, or at cessation of treatment) and using different measures (TNO stereo test, Titmus fly test, Rando... · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Quality of life (different measures and time points reported in the included studies) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 6 months) by patient preference or the Amblyopia Treatment Index questionnaire. · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review

Conventional occlusion vs atropine penalization

Adverse events (reported occurrence of: mild reduction in the visual acuity of the sound eye not requiring treatment; light sensitivity; skin, lid, or conjunctival irritation) Assessed at different time points (17 weeks or 2 years). · Participants of any age with either unilateral strabismic, anisometropic, or mixed (strabismic‐refractive) amblyopia; deprivation…
1 finding from 1 review