evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,783 questions · 10,022 findings · 882 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 2,100 · 21%GRADE not reported 1,013 · 10.1%Very low 2,237 · 22.3%Low 2,514 · 25.1%Moderate 1,709 · 17.1%High 449 · 4.5%

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

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis may leads to higher proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis probably leads to higher all adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis probably leads to higher all adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people with inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab prophylaxis probably leads to higher proportion with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Fitusiran prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Fitusiran prophylaxis probably leads to higher proportion with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review