What do systematic reviews say?

Postoperative feeding via nasojejunal tube vs postoperative parenteral nutrition (PN)

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 24 participants
  Very low

Enteral nutrition via nasojejunal tube plus intravenous glutamine‐dipeptide supplementation vs parenteral nutrition

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Enteral nutrition via nasojejunal tube plus intravenous glutamine‐dipeptide supplementation vs parenteral nutrition

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Enteral nutrition via nasojejunal tube plus intravenous glutamine‐dipeptide supplementation vs parenteral nutrition

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Parenteral nutrition plus branched‐chain‐amino‐acid‐enriched formula vs standard isotonic intravenous glucose solution

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 20 participants
  Low

Parenteral nutrition plus branched‐chain‐amino‐acid‐enriched formula vs standard isotonic intravenous glucose solution

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 20 participants
  Low

Parenteral nutrition plus branched‐chain‐amino‐acid‐enriched formula vs standard isotonic intravenous glucose solution

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 20 participants
  Low

Standard parenteral nutrition vs standard isotonic intravenous glucose solution

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 18 participants
  Low
• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 18 participants
  Low

Standard parenteral nutrition vs standard isotonic intravenous glucose solution

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 18 participants
  Low

Parenteral nutrition with omega‐3 fish oil vs parenteral nutrition

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 36 participants
  Very low

Parenteral nutrition with omega‐3 fish oil vs parenteral nutrition

• Nutritional interventions for liver‐transplanted patients 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 36 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention showed no clear difference in all cause mortality ‐ 30 days (low certainty).

• Colony‐stimulating factors for prevention and treatment of infectious complications in patients with acute myelogenous… 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.97 [0.8, 1.18]
  11 studies · 3319 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Airway clearance techniques for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 54 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Airway clearance techniques for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 171 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Helminth therapy (worms) for allergic rhinitis 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 100 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Helminth therapy (worms) for allergic rhinitis 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 100 participants
  Moderate

Individualised homeopathic medicine (two doses over 24 hours) vs placebo

Individualised homeopathic medicine (two doses over 24 hours) led to higher pain free by end of study (day 6) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 days
  RR 2.00 [1.39, 2.89]
  1 study · 100 participants
  GRADE not reported

One-to-one advice on sugar restriction: detailed information on the sugar content of foods, with instruction to refrain from sugar-containing foods between meals and to reduce sugar in main meals (6-week sugar restriction) vs No advice on sugar restriction

• One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 weeks
  Table 5, mean (SD) intakes/day between meals: intervention 6.7 (1.9) baseline, 0.8 (1.0) at 3 weeks, 0.9 (1.0) at 6 weeks, 5.6 (3.0) at 12 weeks; control 5.3 (2.3), 5.2 (2.9), 4.6 (3.5), 4.7 (1.5). Significant…
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3% vs Normal saline

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3% showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain 72 hours to… compared with normal saline; GRADE not reported.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.65 [0.2, 2.0]
  1 study · 161 participants
  GRADE not reported

Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention) vs Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics

• One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 to 4 years
  Table 2: 77% (193) versus 81% (200) at follow-up (baseline 83% versus 74%, a significant baseline difference). No significant change at follow-up.
  1 study · 497 participants
  GRADE not reported