Other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and hydromediastinum, haematothorax and hydrothorax, pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, nerve injury) · patients with the need for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
It is very uncertain whether ultrasound or Doppler guidance changes other complications (thrombosis, embolism, haematomediastinum and… compared with anatomical landmark (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Time to successful cannulation · patients with the need for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
1 finding from 1 review
First‐attempt success rate · patients with the need for subclavian vein cannulation for central vein catheterization
Ultrasound or Doppler guidance showed no clear difference in success with attempt number 1 compared with anatomical landmark (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
At least 50% of maximum pain relief over 4 to 6 h · Adults with acute pain
The intervention probably leads to higher at least 50% of maximum pain relief over 4 to 6 h (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Participants remedicating within 8 hours · Adults with acute pain
The intervention probably leads to lower participants remedicating within 8 hours (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Participants with at least 1 adverse event · Adults with acute pain
The intervention showed no clear difference in participants with at least 1 adverse event (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Participants with a serious adverse event · Adults with acute pain
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, side-to-side action showed no clear difference in plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ionic action led to lower plaque score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ionic action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Dependability/reliability (mechanical failure) · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Calculus · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, rotation oscillation action led to lower plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, counter oscillation action led to lower plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, circular action showed no clear difference in plaque score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Staining · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, side-to-side action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ultrasonic action led to lower gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health 2014 · Cochrane All outcomesShort term (1 to 3 months)
SMD -0.99 [-1.21, -0.76]
5 studies · 354 participants
GRADE not reported
Ultrasonic vs manual, gingivitis at >3 months: one trial (Terezhalmy 1995a); no statistically significant difference; totals not selected (no pooled estimate presented in this version).
1 study · 46 participants
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
2 findings from 1 review
Unknown/other action vs manual, gingivitis at >3 months: 1 trial; totals not selected.
1 study
GRADE not reported
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health 2014 · Cochrane All outcomesShort term (1 to 3 months)
Unknown/other action vs manual, gingivitis at 1 to 3 months: 3 trials; totals not selected (data presented in forest plots but not pooled).
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, counter oscillation action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review