Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,760 questions · 8,065 findings · 1,036 reviews

No studies found 1,686 · 20.9%GRADE not reported 675 · 8.4%Very low 1,953 · 24.2%Low 2,048 · 25.4%Moderate 1,296 · 16.1%High 407 · 5%

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)

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

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

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