What do systematic reviews say?

ARP with allograft (bone graft) vs ARP with xenograft

It is very uncertain whether ARP with allograft changes changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  MD -0.4 [-1.13, 0.34]
  3 studies · 87 participants
  Very low

ARP with alloplast vs ARP with xenograft

It is very uncertain whether ARP with alloplast changes changes in vertical height of alveolar ridge (mm) compared with ARP with xenograft (very low certainty).

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 to 8 months
  MD -0.6 [-1.27, 0.07]
  1 study · 25 participants
  Very low

ARP with alloplast vs Extraction alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

Concomitant (concurrent) chemoradiotherapy vs Radiotherapy alone

Concomitant (concurrent) chemoradiotherapy led to lower locoregional control, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (platinum +… compared with radiotherapy alone (non-resectable tumours); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.75 [0.61, 0.93]
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Only root resorption was assessed; other adverse effects (gingival disease, demineralisation) were not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgery +/- radiotherapy + (adjuvant) chemotherapy vs Surgery +/- radiotherapy alone (observation or adjuvant radiotherapy only)

Surgery +/- radiotherapy + (adjuvant) chemotherapy showed no clear difference in overall survival, adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation alone… compared with surgery +/- radiotherapy alone (observation or adjuvant radiotherapy… (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 0.95 [0.73, 1.22]
  5 studies · 353 participants
  Moderate

ARP with demineralised bone matrix, single particle size vs ARP with demineralised bone matrix, multiple particle size

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  Outcome not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Ribeiro 1999 found 6/24 lesions progressed after 12 months; not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal… showed no clear difference in number of participants with moderate/severe acute exacerbations… compared with nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo (low certainty).

• Pharmacological and surgical interventions for the treatment of gastro‐oesophageal reflux in adults and children with… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.53 [0.17, 1.63]
  2 studies · 1168 participants
  Low

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

• Pharmacological and surgical interventions for the treatment of gastro‐oesophageal reflux in adults and children with… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  7 studies · 1333 participants
  Moderate

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

• Pharmacological and surgical interventions for the treatment of gastro‐oesophageal reflux in adults and children with… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 239 participants
  Moderate

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

• Pharmacological and surgical interventions for the treatment of gastro‐oesophageal reflux in adults and children with… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 1595 participants
  Low

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pharmacological and surgical interventions for the treatment of gastro‐oesophageal reflux in adults and children with… 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The intervention probably leads to higher invitation versus control: uptake of screening (moderate certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.71 [1.49, 1.96]
  24 studies · 141391 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes GP invitation letter versus invitation letter from other authority… (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.69 [0.75, 3.82]
  2 studies · 86 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher personal invitation versus invitation letter: uptake of screening (low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.32 [1.11, 1.56]
  5 studies · 27663 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention probably leads to higher letter with fixed appointment versus letter with open invitation to… (moderate certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.61 [1.48, 1.75]
  5 studies · 5742 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes counselling versus control: uptake of screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.23 [1.04, 1.45]
  2 studies · 393 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes counselling versus other: uptake of screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.13 [0.9, 1.41]
  1 study · 208 participants
  Very low