evidencegaps
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

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
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.

Standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up, vs standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up,

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

It is very uncertain whether standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone… changes proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (24 months) compared with standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up vs standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone follow‐up

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

It is very uncertain whether individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured… changes proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (24 months) compared with standard pressure ulcer education and monthly mail or telephone… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured telephone follow‐up vs standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone follow‐up,

Proportion of participants developing a new ulcer · s

It is very uncertain whether individualised pressure ulcer education and monthly structured… changes proportion of participants developing a new ulcer (24 months) compared with standard pressure ulcer education and quarterly mail or telephone… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Hypersensitivity · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6… probably leads to higher hypersensitivity compared with low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Pancreatitis · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6… probably leads to higher pancreatitis compared with low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Thromboembolism · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Osteonecrosis · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6… showed no clear difference in osteonecrosis compared with low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Asparaginase‐associated toxicity · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6… probably leads to higher asparaginase‐associated toxicity compared with low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Overall survival · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6… showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) vs low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV)

Event‐free survival · children and adolescents (< 18 years of age) with first‐line ALL

Summary of findings table ‐ Low‐risk with additional PEG‐asp (6… showed no clear difference in event‐free survival compared with low‐risk standard (2 doses, 2500 IU/m2, IV) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

TACE followed by 3‐DCRT vs chemoembolisation

Proportion of participants without tumour response (CR+PR) · primary hepatocellular carcinoma

TACE followed by 3‐DCRT may leads to lower proportion of participants without tumour response (CR+PR) compared with TACE (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review