Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4,808 questions · 8,953 findings · 827 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1,891 · 21.1%GRADE not reported 380 · 4.2%Very low 2,100 · 23.5%Low 2,449 · 27.4%Moderate 1,684 · 18.8%High 449 · 5%

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

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy

Long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) · people with GSV incompetence

It is very uncertain whether endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) changes long‐term recurrence (> 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.08 [0.4, 2.87]
2 studies · 418 participants
Very low

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy

Complications (up to 8 years) · people with GSV incompetence

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Very low

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy

QoL · people with GSV incompetence

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Moderate

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy

Technical success · people with GSV incompetence

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) showed no clear difference in technical success (< 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 6.13 [0.98, 38.27]
3 studies · 588 participants
Low
Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 6.47 [2.6, 16.1]
3 studies · 534 participants
Low

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy

Recurrence · people with GSV incompetence

It is very uncertain whether endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) changes recurrence (< 5 years) compared with ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.68 [0.2, 2.36]
2 studies · 443 participants
Very low

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Outcome: · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

All‐cause mortality · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in mortality compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.94 [0.64, 1.38]
3 studies · 1440 participants
Moderate

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Pulmonary embolism · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis probably leads to lower pulmonary embolism compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.48 [0.24, 0.98]
3 studies · 1440 participants
Moderate

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Symptomatic DVT · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in symptomatic deep vein thrombosis compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.61 [0.31, 1.21]
3 studies · 1440 participants
Moderate

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Major bleeding · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.65 [0.72, 3.8]
3 studies · 1440 participants
Moderate

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Minor bleeding · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in minor bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 3.58 [0.55, 23.44]
3 studies · 1440 participants
Low

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Mortality at 6 months: main analysis · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in mortality at 6 months: main analysis compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.93 [0.77, 1.13]
3 studies · 946 participants
Moderate

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

All‐cause mortality · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis showed no clear difference in mortality compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.95 [0.87, 1.03]
5 studies · 1281 participants
Moderate

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Pulmonary embolism · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

It is very uncertain whether vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis changes pulmonary embolism compared with no prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.05 [0.07, 16.58]
1 study · 311 participants
Very low

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Symptomatic DVT · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

It is very uncertain whether vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis changes symptomatic deep vein thrombosis compared with no prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.08 [0.01, 1.42]
1 study · 311 participants
Very low

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Major bleeding · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis probably leads to higher major bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.93 [1.86, 4.62]
5 studies · 1281 participants
Moderate

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Minor bleeding · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis probably leads to higher minor bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 3.14 [1.85, 5.32]
4 studies · 863 participants
Moderate

Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Quality of life ‐ not reported · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Outcome: · ambulatory people with cancer without venous thromboembolism receiving systemic therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care

Functional outcomes · acute ischaemic stroke

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions leads to higher favourable functional outcome at the end of compared with standard therapy (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Endovascular thrombectomy and intra‐arterial interventions for acute ischaemic stroke 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.5 [1.37, 1.63]
18 studies · 3715 participants
High