evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,678 questions · 4,859 findings · 283 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,225 · 25.2%GRADE not reported 215 · 4.4%Very low 1,241 · 25.5%Low 1,210 · 24.9%Moderate 776 · 16%High 192 · 4%

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

Clinical improvement: discharged alive ( · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) showed no clear difference in clinical improvement: discharged alive ( compared with low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ High‐dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) vs low‐dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg)

Clinical worsening: need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death at up to day 28 · hospitalised individuals with unknown vaccination status and a confirmed diagnosis of symptomatic COVID‐19

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: Specialist inpatient care for weight restoration vs active outpatient or combination brief hospital/outpatient care

Weight or BMI (at end of 12 months from the start of treatment) · participants with anorexia nervosa

Summary of findings: Specialist inpatient care for weight restoration showed no clear difference in weight or BMI (at end of 12 months from the start of treatment) compared with active outpatient or combination brief hospital/outpatient care (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: Specialist inpatient care for weight restoration vs active outpatient or combination brief hospital/outpatient care

Secondary outcome: acceptability of treatment · participants with anorexia nervosa

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Specialist inpatient care for weight restoration changes acceptability: number of participants who completed treatment (at… compared with active outpatient or combination brief hospital/outpatient care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: intravitreal bevacizumab plus intravitreal steroid vs intravitreal anti‐VEGF

Significant intraocular inflammation at · adults with centre‐involving diabetic macular oedema

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: intravitreal anti‐VEGF plus intravitreal steroid changes significant intraocular inflammation at compared with intravitreal anti‐VEGF (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: intravitreal bevacizumab plus intravitreal steroid vs intravitreal anti‐VEGF

Development of cataract at · adults with centre‐involving diabetic macular oedema

Summary of findings: intravitreal anti‐VEGF plus intravitreal steroid probably leads to higher development of cataract at compared with intravitreal anti‐VEGF (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: intravitreal bevacizumab plus intravitreal steroid vs intravitreal anti‐VEGF

Raised Intraocular Pressure at · adults with centre‐involving diabetic macular oedema

Summary of findings: intravitreal anti‐VEGF plus intravitreal steroid probably leads to higher raised intraocular pressure at compared with intravitreal anti‐VEGF (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: intravitreal bevacizumab plus intravitreal steroid vs intravitreal anti‐VEGF

Systemic adverse events at · adults with centre‐involving diabetic macular oedema

Summary of findings: intravitreal anti‐VEGF plus intravitreal steroid showed no clear difference in systemic adverse events at compared with intravitreal anti‐VEGF (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention

Drug use · drug‐using offenders

Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in drug use (objective) hair and urine analyses compared with no intervention (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological vs no intervention

Criminal activity ‐ Re‐incarceration · drug‐using offenders

Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Agonist pharmacological showed no clear difference in criminal activity dichotomous ‐ Re‐incarceration official records compared with no intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

naltrexone vs no pharmacological

Criminal activity dichotomous ‐ Reincarceration official records · patients with drug‐using offenders

Summary of findings for the main comparisons: Antagonost (Naltrexone) probably leads to lower criminal activity dichotomous ‐ Reincarceration official records compared with no pharmacological (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review