What do systematic reviews say?

TCu 220C vs Copper 7

• Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2274 participants
  Moderate

TCu 220C vs Copper 7

• Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 2274 participants
  Moderate

TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop

TCu 220C showed no clear difference in discontinuation due to perforation (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross… compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).

• Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.92 [0.13, 6.6]
  2 studies · 2269 participants
  Moderate

TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop

TCu 220C showed no clear difference in discontinuation due to pelvic inflammatory disease (750 days) compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).

• Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.17 [0.29, 4.71]
  2 studies · 2269 participants
  Moderate

TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop

TCu 220C probably leads to lower discontinuation rate due to pregnancy (750days) compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).

• Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.38 [0.2, 0.72]
  2 studies · 2269 participants
  Moderate

TCu 220C vs Lippes Loop

TCu 220C probably leads to lower discontinuation rate due to expulsion (750 days) Tietze‐Potter gross… compared with lippes Loop (moderate certainty).

• Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.51 [0.3, 0.88]
  2 studies · 2269 participants
  Moderate

CPR plus delayed defibrillation vs immediate defibrillation: overall analysis

CPR plus delayed defibrillation showed no clear difference in survival to hospital discharge rate compared with immediate defibrillation: overall analysis (low certainty).

• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus delayed defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation for out‐of‐hospital… 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.09 [0.54, 2.2]
  3 studies · 658 participants
  Low

CPR plus delayed defibrillation vs immediate defibrillation: overall analysis

CPR plus delayed defibrillation showed no clear difference in neurological outcome at hospital discharge rate of good recovery compared with immediate defibrillation: overall analysis (low certainty).

• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus delayed defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation for out‐of‐hospital… 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.12 [0.65, 1.93]
  3 studies · 2834 participants
  Low

CPR plus delayed defibrillation vs immediate defibrillation: overall analysis

CPR plus delayed defibrillation showed no clear difference in ROSC rate compared with immediate defibrillation: overall analysis (low certainty).

• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus delayed defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation for out‐of‐hospital… 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.94 [0.77, 1.15]
  3 studies · 658 participants
  Low

CPR plus delayed defibrillation vs immediate defibrillation: overall analysis

CPR plus delayed defibrillation showed no clear difference in survival at 1 year rate compared with immediate defibrillation: overall analysis (low certainty).

• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus delayed defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation for out‐of‐hospital… 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.77 [0.24, 2.49]
  2 studies · 456 participants
  Low

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  No statistically significant differences in bone gain between the two procedures for horizontal depth of the defect (HDD) (Chen 2007).
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration)

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
  1 study · 23 participants
  GRADE not reported

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences in bone gain were found between the two procedures for vertical height of the defect (VDH) (Chen 2007).
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration)

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
  1 study · 23 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
  1 study · 24 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
  1 study · 24 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) vs Resorbable barrier + particulate autogenous bone

Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate‐delayed… 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 2 years
  Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
  1 study · 24 participants
  GRADE not reported