Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

880 questions · 912 findings · 126 reviews · Headline outcomes only

No studies found 143 · 15.7%GRADE not reported 38 · 4.2%Very low 250 · 27.4%Low 253 · 27.7%Moderate 168 · 18.4%High 60 · 6.6%

Double vs single‐injection technique

Secondary analgesia failure: Intraoperative sedation required · Adult patients undergoing hand, wrist or forearm surgery

Double showed no clear difference in secondary analgesia failure ‐ intraoperative sedation required compared with single‐injection technique (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Double vs single‐injection technique

Secondary analgesia failure : Tourniquet pain · Adult patients undergoing hand, wrist or forearm surgery

Double showed no clear difference in secondary analgesia failure ‐ tourniquet pain compared with single‐injection technique (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Multiple vs single‐injection technique

Secondary analgesia failure: Intraoperative sedation required · Adult patients undergoing hand, wrist or forearm surgery

Multiple showed no clear difference in secondary analgesia failure ‐ intraoperative sedation required compared with single‐injection technique (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Overall survival (3 years) · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

It is very uncertain whether combination chemotherapy changes overall survival (3 years) compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Disease-free survival · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

It is very uncertain whether combination chemotherapy changes disease‐free survival (3 years) compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Complete response rate after preoperative chemoradiation (ypCR) · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

Combination chemotherapy leads to higher complete response rate after preoperative chemoradiation (ypCR) compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Toxicity ‐ early adverse events G3/4 · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

Combination chemotherapy probably leads to higher toxicity ‐ early adverse events G3/4 compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Metastases intra‐abdominal · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

Combination chemotherapy showed no clear difference in metastases intra‐abdominal compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Radiotherapy compliance · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

Combination chemotherapy probably leads to lower radiotherapy compliance compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination chemotherapy vs single‐agent chemotherapy

Chemotherapy compliance · people with resectable stage II and III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery

Combination chemotherapy leads to lower chemotherapy compliance compared with single‐agent chemotherapy (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Arthroplasty vs fusion

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · patients with single‐level cervical degenerative disc disease
2 findings from 1 review