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.

tDCS vs placebo or control

Secondary outcome measure: mean upper extremity function at the end of the intervention periodClinical measures of upper extremity function. Scale from: 0 to infinity. · patients with improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning at the end of follow‐up, in people after stroke
1 finding from 1 review

tDCS vs placebo or control

Secondary outcome measure: cognitive abilities at the end of · patients with improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning at the end of follow‐up, in people after stroke

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

tDCS vs placebo or control

Secondary outcome measure: hemispatial neglect at the end of · patients with improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning at the end of follow‐up, in people after stroke

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

Adverse events1 · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

Congestive heart failure · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

Septic embolism1 · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

Need for cardiac surgical interventions · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

Uncontrolled infection1 · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

All‐cause mortality during hospital stay and all‐cause mortality at 1 year · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) vs aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus anti‐staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or glycopeptide antibiotic (vancomycin)

Cure · people with endocarditis caused by Staphylococcus aureus

It is very uncertain whether lipopeptide antibiotic (daptomycin) changes cure compared with aminoglycoside (low‐dose gentamicin) plus antistaphylococcal… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

Documenting of matched pregnancy outcome data · Community health care workers, known as Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs) (n = 156) associated with 30 health facilities.

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) showed no clear difference in documenting of matched pregnancy outcome data compared with low‐intensity brief text messaging (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

Functioning of the RHIS · Community health care workers, known as Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs) (n = 156) associated with 30 health facilities.

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

High‐intensity brief text messaging (SMS) vs low‐intensity brief text messaging

Health provider outcomes · Community health care workers, known as Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs) (n = 156) associated with 30 health facilities.

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review