What do systematic reviews say?

Summary of findings ‐ nebulisers for delivering other aerosolised medications: conventional systems vs nebuliser

• Nebuliser systems for drug delivery in cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 8 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings ‐ nebulisers for delivering other aerosolised medications: conventional systems vs nebuliser

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Nebuliser systems for drug delivery in cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ nebulisers for delivering other aerosolised medications: conventional systems vs nebuliser

• Nebuliser systems for drug delivery in cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 8 participants
  Very low

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

• Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.94 [0.83, 1.05]
  8 studies · 1755 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

• Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.75 [0.68, 0.84]
  11 studies · 1347 participants
  Very low

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

• Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.66 [0.54, 0.81]
  5 studies · 538 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

• Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.89 [0.76, 1.04]
  5 studies · 2093 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

Summary of findings table (sensitivity analysis): interventions… probably leads to lower sensitivity analysis, meta‐regression analysis, second part compared with gastric carcinoma (moderate certainty).

• Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.66 [0.54, 0.81]
  5 studies · 538 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings table ‐ Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use vs (Optimised) usual care

• Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 5 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use vs (Optimised) usual care

• Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 3 participants
  High

Summary of findings table ‐ Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use vs (Optimised) usual care

• Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 7982 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use vs (Optimised) usual care

• Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings table ‐ Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use vs (Optimised) usual care

• Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2 participants
  Low

Summary of findings table ‐ Intralesional classical immunosuppresants (betamethasone or triamcinolone) vs placebo

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 543 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings table ‐ Intralesional classical immunosuppresants (betamethasone or triamcinolone) vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings table ‐ Intralesional classical immunosuppresants (betamethasone or triamcinolone) vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings table ‐ Contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone) + hair growth stimulants (minoxidil) vs contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone)

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone) +… changes short‐term hair regrowth ≥ 75% (between 12 and 26 weeks of compared with contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone) (very low certainty).

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.67 [0.13, 3.44]
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings table ‐ Contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone) + hair growth stimulants (minoxidil) vs contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone)

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings table ‐ Contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone) + hair growth stimulants (minoxidil) vs contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings table ‐ Contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone) + hair growth stimulants (minoxidil) vs contact immunotherapy (diphencyprone)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Treatments for alopecia areata: a network meta‐analysis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found