What do systematic reviews say?

Summary of findings for verbal and physical encouragement by touch vs only verbal encouragement during meals

• Environmental and behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 42 participants
  Low

Summary of findings for verbal and physical encouragement by touch vs only verbal encouragement during meals

• Environmental and behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 42 participants
  Low

Summary of findings for verbal and physical encouragement by touch vs only verbal encouragement during meals

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Environmental and behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings for verbal and physical encouragement by touch vs only verbal encouragement during meals

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Environmental and behavioural modifications for improving food and fluid intake in people with dementia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush showed no clear difference in live birth rate ‐ total compared with aspiration (moderate certainty).

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.93 [0.59, 1.46]
  4 studies · 467 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush showed no clear difference in miscarriage rate ‐ total compared with aspiration (low certainty).

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.98 [0.18, 22.22]
  1 study · 164 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  9 studies · 1239 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  7 studies · 785 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 160 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised compared with aspiration (low certainty).

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.13 [0.85, 1.51]
  7 studies · 939 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Aspiration/flush vs aspiration

• Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 3 participants
  Low

Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation… changes extubation successa compared with no cough augmentation technique (very low certainty).

• Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.58 [1.13, 2.2]
  1 study · 75 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation… changes duration of mechanical ventilationb compared with no cough augmentation technique (very low certainty).

• Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 75 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings for the main comparison: cough augmentation techniques vs no cough augmentation technique

• Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 75 participants
  Very low

Summary of Findings Table ‐ The Lidcombe Program vs waiting list control

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for stuttering in children six years and younger 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 46 participants
  Moderate

Summary of Findings Table ‐ The Lidcombe Program vs waiting list control

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for stuttering in children six years and younger 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Summary of Findings Table ‐ The Lidcombe Program vs waiting list control

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for stuttering in children six years and younger 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Summary of findings: oral steroids plus antibiotic vs control plus antibiotic

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oral or topical nasal steroids for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: oral steroids plus antibiotic vs control plus antibiotic

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oral or topical nasal steroids for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: oral steroids plus antibiotic vs control plus antibiotic

Summary of findings: oral steroids plus antibiotic showed no clear difference in adverse effects [2 weeks to 6 months] compared with control plus antibiotic (low certainty).

• Oral or topical nasal steroids for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.5 [0.81, 2.78]
  2 studies · 255 participants
  Low