All‐cause mortality by day 30 · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
Casirivimab/imdevimab showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality by day 30 compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Hospital re‐admission within 30 days of discharge · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
Casirivimab/imdevimab showed no clear difference in admission to hospital by day 30 compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Serious adverse events until data cut‐offb · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
Casirivimab/imdevimab showed no clear difference in serious adverse events until data cut‐offb compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Admission to hospital within 6 monthsb · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may leads to lower admission to hospital within 6 monthsb compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Quality of life at longest · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Adverse events: grade 1 to 2 · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Grades 3 and 4 adverse events · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Adverse events: all grades · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
Tixagevimab/cilgavimab showed no clear difference in adverse events: all grade within 6 monthsb compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Serious adverse events within 6 monthsb · SARS‐CoV‐2 uninfected people without defined exposure, or with potential exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2
Tixagevimab/cilgavimab showed no clear difference in serious adverse events within 6 monthsb compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure
Biodentine had a significantly higher pulpotomy success rate than MTA (indirect comparison; numeric estimate not available); ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis and open (immature) root apex due to carious pulp exposure
In open-apex teeth, pooled pulpotomy success was 95.8% (95% CI 81-99%); significantly higher than closed apex (z=2.33, p=0.02); ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis and closed (mature) root apex due to carious pulp exposure
In closed-apex teeth, pooled pulpotomy success was 83% (95% CI 69-91%); significantly lower than open apex (z=2.33, p=0.02); ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure
MTA had a significantly higher pulpotomy success rate than calcium hydroxide (indirect comparison; numeric estimate not available); ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure
In symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, pooled pulpotomy success was 84% (95% CI 72-92%); not significantly different from asymptomatic (z=-1.34, p=0.18); ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
Stomach cancer risk (18 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years)
It is very uncertain whether highest changes stomach cancer risk (18 studies) compared with lowest green tea exposure (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.86 [0.74, 1.01]
438595 participants
Very low
Liver cancer risk (6 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years)
Highest showed no clear difference in liver cancer risk (6 studies) compared with lowest green tea exposure (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.88 [0.68, 1.14]
198885 participants
Low
Pancreatic cancer risk (9 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years)
Highest showed no clear difference in pancreatic cancer risk (9 studies) compared with lowest green tea exposure (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.88 [0.7, 1.1]
326564 participants
Low
Colorectal cancer risk (16 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years)
Highest may leads to lower colorectal cancer risk (16 studies) compared with lowest green tea exposure (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.84 [0.74, 0.96]
610295 participants
Low
Colon cancer risk (10 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years)
Highest may leads to lower colon cancer risk (10 studies) compared with lowest green tea exposure (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.89 [0.8, 0.98]
389974 participants
Low
Rectal cancer risk (9 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years)
Highest showed no clear difference in rectal cancer risk (9 studies) compared with lowest green tea exposure (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.89 [0.75, 1.05]
356851 participants
Low