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

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.

Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction vs Epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction

MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion) · People on antiresorptive treatment undergoing tooth extraction (at risk of MRONJ)

Subperiosteal prepared (SPP) wound closure after tooth extraction showed no clear difference in MRONJ after tooth extraction (incidence proportion) compared with epiperiosteal prepared (EPP) wound closure after tooth extraction (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Antibiotics prior to long‐term CVC insertion versus control: catheter‐related infections · adults and children diagnosed with an oncologic disease with a newly‐inserted long‐term CVC who were at risk of neutropenia due to…

The intervention showed no clear difference in antibiotics prior to long‐term CVC insertion versus control:… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Antibiotic versus heparin only lock/flush solution: catheter‐related infections · adults and children diagnosed with an oncologic disease with a newly‐inserted long‐term CVC who were at risk of neutropenia due to…

The intervention probably leads to lower antibiotic versus heparin only lock/flush solution: catheter‐related… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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