Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,018 questions · 3,100 findings · 369 reviews · Headline outcomes only

No studies found 774 · 25%GRADE not reported 108 · 3.5%Very low 727 · 23.5%Low 840 · 27.1%Moderate 474 · 15.3%High 177 · 5.7%

Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy changes standardized Disability Index (0 to 100) Bilateral laminotomy… compared with conventional laminectomy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

Satisfactory recovery Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy may leads to higher satisfactory recovery Bilateral laminotomy compared with… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

VAS leg (0 to 10) Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy · patients with lumbar stenosis

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy changes VAS leg (0 to 10) Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional… compared with conventional laminectomy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: bilateral laminotomy showed no clear difference in VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy · patients with lumbar stenosis

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy changes VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional… compared with conventional laminectomy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy showed no clear difference in standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Unilateral laminotomy… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

Satisfactory recovery Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy showed no clear difference in satisfactory recovery Unilateral laminotomy compared with… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

VAS leg (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: unilateral laminotomy showed no clear difference in VAS leg (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy showed no clear difference in standardised Disability Index (0 to 100) Split‐spinous process… compared with conventional laminectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

Satisfactory recovery Bilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy Satisfactory recovery was defined as 'good' or 'excellent' self‐perceived recovery · patients with lumbar stenosis

Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy led to lower satisfactory recovery Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with… compared with conventional laminectomy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

VAS leg (0 to 10) Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy · patients with lumbar stenosis

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy changes VAS leg (0 to 10) Split‐spinous process laminotomy compared with… compared with conventional laminectomy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy vs conventional laminectomy

VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional laminectomy · patients with lumbar stenosis

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: split‐spinous process laminotomy changes VAS back (0 to 10) Unilateral laminotomy compared with conventional… compared with conventional laminectomy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma vs gastric carcinoma

Studies with gastric cancer participants in addition to eligible participants · palliative participants with esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma or gastric carcinoma

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions… showed no clear difference in studies with gastric cancer participants in addition to eligible… compared with gastric carcinoma; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma vs gastric carcinoma

Sensitivity analysis, meta‐regression analysis, first part · palliative participants with esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma or gastric carcinoma

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions… changes sensitivity analysis, meta‐regression analysis, first part compared with gastric carcinoma (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma vs gastric carcinoma

Sensitivity analysis, only esophageal and GE‐junction cancer participants · palliative participants with esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma or gastric carcinoma

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions… led to lower sensitivity analysis, only esophageal and GE‐junction cancer… compared with gastric carcinoma; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma vs gastric carcinoma

Sensitivity analysis, only gastric cancer participants · palliative participants with esophageal and GE‐junction carcinoma or gastric carcinoma

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions… showed no clear difference in sensitivity analysis, only gastric cancer participants compared with gastric carcinoma; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review