Intervention not reported
Functional status, short term Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 0 to 100%) or Roland Morris (0 to 24) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted340 participantsModerate
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
4,072 questions · 4,237 findings · 447 reviews · Headline outcomes only
No studies found 946 · 22.3%GRADE not reported 257 · 6.1%Very low 1,121 · 26.5%Low 1,207 · 28.5%Moderate 568 · 13.4%High 138 · 3.3%
Intervention not reported
Adverse event—not reported · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Intervention not reported
Leg pain, short term Visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 100) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted340 participantsLow
Intervention not reported
Low back pain, short term Visual analogue scale (VAS 0 to 100) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted340 participantsModerate
Intervention not reported
General health, short term Visual analogue scale (VAS 100 to 0) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted238 participantsLow
Intervention not reported
Adverse Events ‐ not reported · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Intervention not reported
Functional status, long term Oswestry Disability Index (ODI 0 to 100%) or Roland Morris (0 to 24) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted373 participantsModerate
Intervention not reported
Leg pain, long term Visual analogue scale (VAS 0 to 100) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted373 participantsModerate
Intervention not reported
Low back pain, long term Visual analogue scale (VAS 0 to 100) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted373 participantsModerate
Intervention not reported
General health, long term Visual analogue scale (VAS 100 to 0) · participants with lumbar spinal stenosis
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted273 participantsLow
Protocol to increase global blood flow vs control
Mortality within the longest · surgical patients
Protocol to increase global blood flow showed no clear difference in mortality (Longest compared with control (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes following surgery 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.89 [0.76, 1.05]31 studies · 5292 participantsLow
Protocol to increase global blood flow vs control
Mortality (Hospital or 28‐day) · surgical patients
Protocol to increase global blood flow showed no clear difference in mortality (Hospital or 28‐day) compared with control (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes following surgery 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.81 [0.65, 1]31 studies · 5292 participantsLow
Protocol to increase global blood flow vs control
Number of patients with complications · surgical patients
Protocol to increase global blood flow may leads to lower number of patients with complications compared with control (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes following surgery 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.68 [0.58, 0.8]17 studies · 1841 participantsLow
Protocol to increase global blood flow vs control
Length of hospital stay · surgical patients
1 finding from 1 review
- Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes following surgery 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted27 studies · 4729 participantsLow
Medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids vs oral steroids alone
Change in sensory score after one year · patients with nerve damage in leprosy
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 57 participantsVery low
Medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids vs oral steroids alone
Proportion of ulnar nerves with sensory improvement after one year · patients with nerve damage in leprosy
It is very uncertain whether medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids changes proportion of ulnar nerves with sensory improvement after one year compared with oral steroids alone (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 1.12 [0.71, 1.77]1 study · 62 participantsVery low
Medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids vs oral steroids alone
Change in motor score after one year · patients with nerve damage in leprosy
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 57 participantsVery low
Medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids vs oral steroids alone
Proportion of ulnar nerves with motor improvement after one year · patients with nerve damage in leprosy
It is very uncertain whether medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids changes proportion of ulnar nerves with motor improvement after one year compared with oral steroids alone (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.91 [0.64, 1.28]1 study · 62 participantsVery low
Medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids vs oral steroids alone
Change in sensory score after two years · patients with nerve damage in leprosy
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 57 participantsVery low
Medial epicondylectomy plus oral steroids vs oral steroids alone
Change in motor score after two years · patients with nerve damage in leprosy
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 57 participantsVery low