Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedModerate
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in technical success (< 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) changes recurrence (< 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Other therapies (cryotherapy) changes short‐term hair regrowth ≥ 75% compared with other therapies (fractional CO2 laser) (very low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Self-assembling peptide P11-4 significantly improved remineralization versus control (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.15); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).
Resin infiltration significantly improved remineralization versus control (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.43), ranking second of seven therapies by SUCRA (88.7%); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).
Combined self-assembling peptide P11-4 plus fluoride varnish significantly improved white spot lesion remineralization versus control (SMD -0.96, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.48) and ranked highest of seven therapies by SUCRA (89.7%); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).
Fluoride varnish (gold standard) did not differ significantly from control (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.02); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).
CPP-ACP did not differ significantly from control (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.14); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).
CPP-ACFP versus control gave SMD -0.42 (95% CI -0.84 to 0.00); the review classed CPP-ACFP as statistically significant versus control although the reported CI upper limit is at the null (0.00); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Occlusal splint showed no clear difference in depression compared with physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training,…; GRADE not reported.
It is very uncertain whether occlusal splint changes severity of joint noise compared with physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training,… (very low certainty).
Occlusal splint led to lower participant satisfaction or quality of life compared with physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training,…; GRADE not reported.
It is very uncertain whether occlusal splint changes muscle pain when chewing compared with physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training,… (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether occlusal splint changes joint pain at rest compared with physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training,… (very low certainty).