Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4,410 questions · 8,901 findings · 1,091 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1,687 · 19%GRADE not reported 1,469 · 16.5%Very low 1,969 · 22.1%Low 2,060 · 23.1%Moderate 1,302 · 14.6%High 414 · 4.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Intrauterine balloon tamponade (condom‐loaded catheter) vs uterovaginal packing (intrauterine tamponade versus another intrauterine tamponade method)

Serious maternal morbidity (renal or respiratory failure, cardiac arrest or multiple organ failure) · Women (aged between 20 and 40) diagnosed with primary PPH following 'normal' vaginal birth and unresponsive to medical treatment (Ashraf…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intrauterine balloon tamponade (condom‐loaded catheter) vs uterovaginal packing (intrauterine tamponade versus another intrauterine tamponade method)

Number of women with total blood loss 1000 mL or more after randomisation · Women (aged between 20 and 40) diagnosed with primary PPH following 'normal' vaginal birth and unresponsive to medical treatment (Ashraf…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intrauterine balloon tamponade (condom‐loaded catheter) vs uterovaginal packing (intrauterine tamponade versus another intrauterine tamponade method)

Mean blood loss (mL) (trialist defined) · Women (aged between 20 and 40) diagnosed with primary PPH following 'normal' vaginal birth and unresponsive to medical treatment (Ashraf…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intrauterine balloon tamponade (condom‐loaded catheter) vs uterovaginal packing (intrauterine tamponade versus another intrauterine tamponade method)

Blood transfusion (red cell or whole blood) · Women (aged between 20 and 40) diagnosed with primary PPH following 'normal' vaginal birth and unresponsive to medical treatment (Ashraf…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intrauterine balloon tamponade (condom‐loaded catheter) vs uterovaginal packing (intrauterine tamponade versus another intrauterine tamponade method)

Side effects of the intervention (e.g. trauma, necrosis) ‐ fever · Women (aged between 20 and 40) diagnosed with primary PPH following 'normal' vaginal birth and unresponsive to medical treatment (Ashraf…

It is very uncertain whether intrauterine balloon tamponade (condom‐loaded catheter) changes side effects of the intervention (e.g. trauma, necrosis) ‐ fever compared with uterovaginal packing (intrauterine tamponade versus another… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.47 [0.38, 0.59]
1 study · 212 participants
Very low

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Mortality due to bleeding · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Hysterectomy to control bleeding · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique may leads to lower hysterectomy to control bleeding compared with standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.33 [0.11, 0.99]
1 study · 160 participants
Low

External uterine compression (all methods) plus normal care vs normal care

Blood transfusion (red cell or whole blood) · women diagnosed with primary PPH following vaginal birth. PPH was defined as quote: "blood loss > 500mL after delivery" p 601

It is very uncertain whether external uterine compression (all methods) plus normal care changes blood transfusion (red cell or whole blood) compared with normal care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.33 [0.66, 8.23]
1 study · 64 participants
Very low

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Serious maternal morbidity (renal or respiratory failure, cardiac arrest or multiple organ failure) · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Number of women with total blood loss 1000 mL or more after randomisation · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Mean blood loss (mL) (trialist defined) · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Blood transfusion (red cell or whole blood) · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Modified B‐Lynch compression suture technique vs standard B‐Lynch compression suture (one uterine compression suture technique versus another uterine compression suture technique)

Side effects of the intervention (e.g. trauma, necrosis) · women with uncontrolled atonic PPH following caesarean section, and not responding to standard care (uterine massage, ecbolics and…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

External uterine compression (all methods) plus normal care vs normal care

Side effects of the intervention (e.g. trauma, necrosis) ‐ not reported · women diagnosed with primary PPH following vaginal birth. PPH was defined as quote: "blood loss > 500mL after delivery" p 601

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

T allele of ENAM rs3796703 vs C allele

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

The pooled odds ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.24 to 3.58).

1 finding from 1 review

Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes
Overall (n=2)
OR 0.92 [0.24, 3.58]
2 studies · 1152 participants
GRADE not reported

Clobetasol propionate ointment vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT)

Pain (mean score) · People with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed oral lichen planus (OLP); not concurrently receiving other OLP treatment

It is very uncertain whether clobetasol propionate ointment changes pain (mean score) compared with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oral lichen planus: corticosteroid therapies 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD 0.62 [0.42, 0.82]
1 study · 42 participants
Very low

GG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA + AG genotype

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.13).

1 finding from 1 review

Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes
Overall (n=4)
OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13]
4 studies · 2662 participants
GRADE not reported

Clobetasol propionate ointment vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT)

Clinical score · People with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed oral lichen planus (OLP); not concurrently receiving other OLP treatment

It is very uncertain whether clobetasol propionate ointment changes clinical score compared with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating oral lichen planus: corticosteroid therapies 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD 0.56 [0.50, 0.62]
1 study · 42 participants
Very low

TT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC + CT genotype

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

The pooled odds ratio was 2.90 (95% CI 0.92 to 9.12).

1 finding from 1 review

Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes
Overall (n=2)
OR 2.90 [0.92, 9.12]
2 studies · 1152 participants
GRADE not reported

TT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC genotype

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

The pooled odds ratio was 1.83 (95% CI 0.47 to 7.06).

1 finding from 1 review

Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes
Overall (n=3)
OR 1.83 [0.47, 7.06]
3 studies · 285 participants
GRADE not reported