Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

336 questions · 357 findings · 36 reviews

No studies found 65 · 18.2%GRADE not reported 16 · 4.5%Very low 87 · 24.4%Low 114 · 31.9%Moderate 60 · 16.8%High 15 · 4.2%

Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs interferon beta‐1a

Participants free from MRI gadolinium‐enhancing lesions · patients with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis

Fingolimod 0.5 mg probably leads to higher participants free from MRI gadolinium‐enhancing lesions compared with interferon beta‐1a (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Overall survival · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Disease-free survival · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Resectability · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Quality of life · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Adverse events · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Complete remission · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Partial reduction · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Recurrence · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Recurrence · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

It is very uncertain whether intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α changes recurrence compared with intravesically administered BCG alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Disease‐specific quality of life ‐ not reported · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Disease progression · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α showed no clear difference in progression compared with intravesically administered BCG alone (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events ‐ not measured · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Disease‐specific mortality ‐ not reported · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

It is very uncertain whether intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α changes disease‐specific mortality compared with intravesically administered BCG alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG combined with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Disease‐specific quality of life ‐ not reported · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α vs intravesically administered BCG alone

Time to recurrence · patients with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer

Intravesically administered BCG alternating with IFN‐α may leads to higher time‐to‐recurrence compared with intravesically administered BCG alone (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review