Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,410 questions · 8,901 findings · 1,091 reviews

No studies found 1,687 · 19%GRADE not reported 1,469 · 16.5%Very low 1,969 · 22.1%Low 2,060 · 23.1%Moderate 1,302 · 14.6%High 414 · 4.7%

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

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

All‐cause mortality up to 120 days · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) changes all‐cause mortality up to 120 days compared with low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

Clinical improvement: discharged alive ( · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) showed no clear difference in clinical improvement: discharged alive ( compared with low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

Clinical worsening: need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death at up to day 28 · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical anaesthetic gel (prilocaine-lidocaine) vs Eugenol

Pain at 48 hours (VAS 0-10) · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction

Topical anaesthetic gel (prilocaine-lidocaine) showed no clear difference in pain at 48 hours (VAS 0-10) compared with eugenol; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Caries in upper primary incisors vs Reference (other primary tooth locations / caries-free)

Caries development in permanent teeth · School children and adolescents (6-18 years) followed from primary dentition (baseline examination before 72 months of age)

Caries in upper primary incisors has the lowest tooth-specific predictive value for permanent-teeth caries (RR 1.6; single study; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Early childhood caries (ECC) vs Caries-free primary dentition

Caries development in permanent teeth · School children and adolescents (6-18 years) followed from primary dentition (baseline examination before 72 months of age)

Early childhood caries increases the likelihood of caries in permanent teeth roughly three-fold, but the certainty of evidence is very low (OR 3.22, 95% CI 2.80 to 3.71).

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel caries in primary dentition (at 5 years) vs Caries-free primary dentition

Dentinal caries in permanent (newly erupted) teeth · School children and adolescents (6-18 years) followed from primary dentition (baseline examination before 72 months of age)

Enamel caries in the primary dentition is associated with about 1.6 times higher odds of dentinal caries in permanent teeth (single study; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cytology (e.g. OralCDx brush biopsy, CytID) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Higher consumption of snacks / sugar / soft drinks vs Lower consumption

Dental caries · Healthy children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates

Higher snacking and soft-drink/sugar consumption were associated with more caries in most studies, though one study found no association with sweet-consumption frequency (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review