Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

529 questions · 536 findings · 58 reviews

No studies found 147 · 27.4%GRADE not reported 67 · 12.5%Very low 121 · 22.6%Low 115 · 21.5%Moderate 78 · 14.6%High 8 · 1.5%

Summary of findings for IV hexoprenaline vs no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery

Low umbilical artery pH (< 7.2 or as defined by trial authors) · women for whom a decision had been made to deliver by caesarean section for suspected fetal distress based on FHR monitoring

Summary of findings for IV hexoprenaline showed no clear difference in umbilical artery pH < 7.2 compared with no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings for IV hexoprenaline vs no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery

Abnormal FHR as defined by trial authors (FHR tracing not improved) · women for whom a decision had been made to deliver by caesarean section for suspected fetal distress based on FHR monitoring

Summary of findings for IV hexoprenaline probably leads to lower FHR tracing not improved compared with no tocolytic agent, whilst awaiting emergency delivery (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS and M‐entropy) vs standard monitoring

Awareness Postoperative interview · patients with prevention of recall of events during surgery

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS and M‐entropy) showed no clear difference in awareness Postoperative interview compared with standard clinical and electronic monitoring (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS and M‐entropy) vs standard monitoring

Adverse effects of intraoperative wakefulness and/or postoperative awareness (i.e. post‐traumatic stress syndrome, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, etc.) · patients with prevention of recall of events during surgery

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS) vs standard monitoring

Awareness: definite and possible Postoperative interview · patients with prevention of recall of events during surgery

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS) showed no clear difference in awareness: definite and possible Postoperative interview compared with standard clinical and electronic monitoring (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS) vs standard monitoring

Awareness: definite Postoperative interview · patients with prevention of recall of events during surgery

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS) showed no clear difference in awareness: definite Postoperative interview compared with standard clinical and electronic monitoring (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS) vs standard monitoring

Adverse effects of intraoperative wakefulness and/or postoperative awareness (i.e. post‐traumatic stress syndrome, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, etc.) · patients with prevention of recall of events during surgery

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Scheduled surveillance vs clinical monitoring alone

Access thrombosis/vascular complication · people receiving haemodialysis to treat kidney failure and using a functioning AV access for haemodialysis.

Scheduled surveillance showed no clear difference in risk of access thrombosis compared with clinical monitoring alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Scheduled surveillance vs clinical monitoring alone

Risk of access loss · people receiving haemodialysis to treat kidney failure and using a functioning AV access for haemodialysis.

Scheduled surveillance showed no clear difference in risk of access loss compared with clinical monitoring alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review