Intervention not reported
Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Delayed open necrosectomy vs. early open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes delayed open necrosectomy vs. early open necrosectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage · patients with pancreatic pseudocysts
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage · patients with pancreatic pseudocysts
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Open surgical drainage versus EUS‐guided drainage Scale from: 0 to 100. Higher indicates better · patients with pancreatic pseudocysts
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Major adverse effects ‐ Neutropenia · people with non‐transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes major adverse effects ‐ Neutropenia (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Major adverse effects ‐ Thrombocytopenia · people with non‐transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes major adverse effects ‐ Thrombocytopenia (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Incidence of febrile neutropenia · cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Intervention not reported
Incidence of febrile neutropenia · cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes incidence of febrile neutropenia (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Safety (AE, adverse drug reaction): thrombocytopenia Grades 3 or 4 according to National Cancer Institute · Patients with treating MF
Ruxolitinib showed no clear difference in safety (AE, adverse drug reaction): thrombocytopenia Grades 3 or 4… compared with best available therapy (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Safety (AE, adverse drug reaction): thrombocytopenia Grades 3 or 4 according to National Cancer Institute · Patients with treating MF
Ruxolitinib may leads to higher safety (AE, adverse drug reaction): thrombocytopenia Grades 3 or 4… compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia · Patients with treating MF
Ruxolitinib may leads to higher safety (AE, adverse drug reaction): neutropenia Grades 3 or 4… compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Grade 3 or higher hematological toxicity for platinum therapies ‐ thrombocytopenia · non‐small cell lung cancer in the elderly population
Non‐platinum therapies may leads to higher grade 3 or higher hematological toxicity for platinum therapies ‐… compared with platinum combination (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia · non‐small cell lung cancer in the elderly population
Non‐platinum single‐agent may leads to higher grade 3 and 4 hematological adverse events (AE) ‐ neutropenia compared with non‐platinum combination treatment (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Safety (AE, adverse drug reaction): thrombocytopenia Grades 3 or 4 according to National Cancer Institute · non‐small cell lung cancer in the elderly population
It is very uncertain whether non‐platinum single‐agent changes grade 3 and 4 hematological adverse events (AE) ‐ thrombocytopenia compared with non‐platinum combination treatment (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Early toxicities (during preoperative chemotherapy): febrile neutropenia (2 or more episodes), proven fungal infections, septicemia (1 or more episodes), gastrointestinal toxicity (grade 3 or 4), renal toxicity (glomerular filtration rate < 80 ml/... · patients with high‐risk neuroblastoma
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
The proportion of patients with lymphopenia at two years · Patients with relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis
The intervention probably leads to higher the proportion of patients with lymphopenia at two years (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review