evidencegaps
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

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
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.

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Prostate cancer risk (13 studies) · Participants in non experimental cohort studies on selenium and cancer

It is very uncertain whether highest changes prostate cancer risk No. of participants: 576,667 (21 observational… compared with lowest selenium exposure (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Any cancer risk No. of participants: 76,239 (7 observational studies) · Participants in non experimental cohort studies on selenium and cancer

It is very uncertain whether highest changes any cancer risk No. of participants: 76,239 (7 observational studies) compared with lowest selenium exposure (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

All‐cause mortality · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Recurrent VTE · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis may leads to lower recurrent VTE compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major upper GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes major upper GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Major non‐GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes major non‐GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis probably leads to higher minor bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes minor GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor upper GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

It is very uncertain whether direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis changes minor upper GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis vs Low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis

Minor non‐GI bleeding · patients with cancer with venous thromboembolism

Direct oral anticoagulant secondary prophylaxis probably leads to higher minor non‐GI bleeding compared with low molecular weight heparin secondary prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Upright position vs recumbent position

Operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) · women in the second stage of labour with epidural anaesthesia

Upright position leads to higher operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) compared with recumbent position (sensitivity analyses ‐ studies at low risk of… (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Upright position vs recumbent position

Instrumental vaginal birth · women in the second stage of labour with epidural anaesthesia

Upright position showed no clear difference in instrumental vaginal birth compared with recumbent position (sensitivity analyses ‐ studies at low risk of… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Higher dose vitamin K vs lower dose vitamin K

Intraventricular hemorrhage > Grade II: 0.2 mg IM versus 0.5 mg IM · preterm infants

Higher dose vitamin K showed no clear difference in intraventricular hemorrhage > Grade II: 0.2 mg IM versus 0.5 mg IM compared with lower dose vitamin K (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review