Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy
Complications (up to 8 years) · people with GSV incompetence
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedVery low
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
4,771 questions · 10,185 findings · 893 reviews
No studies found 2,109 · 20.7%GRADE not reported 1,125 · 11%Very low 2,279 · 22.4%Low 2,514 · 24.7%Moderate 1,709 · 16.8%High 449 · 4.4%
Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.
Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) vs foam sclerotherapy
QoL · people with GSV incompetence
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedModerate
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
- OR 6.13 [0.98, 38.27]3 studies · 588 participantsLow
- OR 6.47 [2.6, 16.1]3 studies · 534 participantsLow
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
- OR 0.68 [0.2, 2.36]2 studies · 443 participantsVery 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 onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo 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 onlyRR 0.94 [0.64, 1.38]3 studies · 1440 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 0.48 [0.24, 0.98]3 studies · 1440 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 0.61 [0.31, 1.21]3 studies · 1440 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 1.65 [0.72, 3.8]3 studies · 1440 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 3.58 [0.55, 23.44]3 studies · 1440 participantsLow
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 onlyRR 0.93 [0.77, 1.13]3 studies · 946 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 0.95 [0.87, 1.03]5 studies · 1281 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 1.05 [0.07, 16.58]1 study · 311 participantsVery 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 onlyRR 0.08 [0.01, 1.42]1 study · 311 participantsVery 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 onlyRR 2.93 [1.86, 4.62]5 studies · 1281 participantsModerate
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 onlyRR 3.14 [1.85, 5.32]4 studies · 863 participantsModerate
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 onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo 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 onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo 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 onlyRR 1.5 [1.37, 1.63]18 studies · 3715 participantsHigh
Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care
Death from all causes at the end of · acute ischaemic stroke
Endovascular thrombectomy interventions leads to lower death from all causes 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 onlyRR 0.85 [0.75, 0.97]19 studies · 3793 participantsHigh