evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,315 questions · 23,557 findings · 2,311 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 4,183 · 17.8%GRADE not reported 3,930 · 16.7%Very low 5,371 · 22.8%Low 5,787 · 24.6%Moderate 3,320 · 14.1%High 966 · 4.1%

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

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis may leads to higher proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis probably leads to higher all adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis probably leads to higher all adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly vs emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people with inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab prophylaxis probably leads to higher proportion with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly vs emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly showed no clear difference in all adverse events compared with emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly vs emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review