Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adults undergoing orthodontic treatment
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) led to lower patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with no special instructions (control); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD -27.91 [-40.10, -15.72]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -6.50 [-17.64, 4.64]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -20.67 [-32.12, -9.22]
1 study · 24 participants
Very low
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation); GRADE not reported.
5 findings from 1 review
MD -10.63 [-22.33, 1.07]
2 studies · 118 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -6.39 [-8.65, -4.13]
1 study · 58 participants
GRADE not reported
Two further studies (160 participants) used bespoke assessments. Harazaki 1997 (84 participants): slightly lower proportion reporting severe pain in the intervention group, no inferential statistics. Turhani 2006 (76…
2 studies · 160 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
MD -10.76 [-13.80, -7.73]
2 studies · 118 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -20.27 [-24.50, -16.04]
2 studies · 118 participants
Low
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment
Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with no chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct); GRADE not reported.
5 findings from 1 review
MD -1.39 [-3.24, 0.64]
1 study · 39 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -29.16 [-51.67, -6.65]
1 study · 39 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -15.17 [-32.44, 2.11]
2 studies · 96 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
MD -15.38 [-28.90, -1.86]
2 studies · 96 participants
Very low
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes1 day · Bite wafer subgroup (median data, opposite direction)
Otasevic 2006 (84 participants) presented median values only and reported higher median pain in the bite wafer group than the group who avoided chewing at one day (P = 0.006); data not suitable for meta‐analysis.
1 study · 84 participants
GRADE not reported
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment
Vibratory stimulation (vibratory adjuncts) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with no vibration or placebo vibration; GRADE not reported.
5 findings from 1 review
MD 1.28 [-3.16, 5.71]
3 studies · 154 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -0.52 [-9.41, 8.36]
2 studies · 115 participants
GRADE not reported
Lobre 2015 (high risk of bias): mean overall pain intensity 8.49 mm lower on the VAS during the second month (P = 0.04) and 6.26 mm lower during the fourth month (P = 0.03); no evidence of benefit at month one or month…
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adults undergoing orthodontic treatment
Brain wave music (BWM) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with no special instructions (control); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
MD -4.72 [-15.83, 6.39]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
MD -26.65 [-39.06, -14.24]
1 study · 24 participants
Very low
MD -23.44 [-36.82, -10.06]
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue medication use) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment
Vibratory stimulation (vibratory adjuncts) led to lower dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue… compared with no vibration or placebo vibration; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.63 [0.44, 0.92]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Intervention not reported
Physical well‐being SF‐36 Physical Component Summary Score 0 to 100, higher scores indicate higher levels of physical well‐being Immediately post‐intervention · Cancer patients with cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Physical well‐being SF‐36 Physical Component Summary Score 0‐100, higher scores indicate higher levels of physical well‐being Two‐months post‐intervention · Cancer patients with cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Psychological well‐being SF‐36 Mental Component Summary Score 0 to 100, higher scores indicate higher levels of physical well‐being Immediately post‐intervention · Cancer patients with cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Psychological well‐being SF‐36 Mental Component Summary Score 0 to 100, higher scores indicate higher levels of physical well‐being Two‐months post‐intervention · Cancer patients with cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment
1 finding from 1 review
Quality of life or patient satisfaction · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment
Experimental chewing adjuncts (bite wafers or chewing gum) led to lower quality of life or patient satisfaction compared with no chewing gum, placebo, or control (no adjunct); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Dose/intensity and frequency of pain relief needed (analgesic/rescue medication use) · Adolescents/teenagers undergoing orthodontic treatment
1 finding from 1 review
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Dropout · patients with depression during opioid agonist treatment for opioid dependence
Antidepressants showed no clear difference in dropout ‐ All studies objective compared with placebo according to any definition (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events ‐ Withdrawn for medical reasons · patients with depression during opioid agonist treatment for opioid dependence
Antidepressants probably leads to higher adverse events ‐ Withdrawn for medical reasons compared with placebo (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Drupout ‐ Tricyclics versus placebo · patients with depression during opioid agonist treatment for opioid dependence
The intervention showed no clear difference in drupout ‐ Tricyclics versus placebo (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Drupout ‐ SSRI versus placebo · patients with depression during opioid agonist treatment for opioid dependence
The intervention showed no clear difference in drupout ‐ SSRI versus placebo (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review