evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,734 questions · 15,288 findings · 893 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 3,864 · 25.3%GRADE not reported 2,222 · 14.5%Very low 3,868 · 25.3%Low 3,280 · 21.5%Moderate 1,676 · 11%High 378 · 2.5%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Oral miltefosine (1.2 to 3.3 mg/kg/d 28 days) vs meglumine antimoniate (20 mg/kg 20 days)

Complete cure, at least 3 months after the end of treatment · People with American cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis

Oral miltefosine (1.2 to 3.3 mg/kg/d 28 days) showed no clear difference in complete cure, at least 3 months after the end of treatment compared with meglumine antimoniate (20 mg/kg 20 days) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral miltefosine (1.2 to 3.3 mg/kg/d 28 days) vs meglumine antimoniate (20 mg/kg 20 days)

Adverse effects (number of participants who had the event) · People with American cutaneous and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis

Oral miltefosine (1.2 to 3.3 mg/kg/d 28 days) probably leads to higher adverse effects (number of participants who had the event) compared with meglumine antimoniate (20 mg/kg 20 days) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Undercorrected vs fully corrected spectacles · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Systemic 7‐methylxanthine vs placebo · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Atropine plus multifocal spectacles vs placebo plus SVLs · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Atropine plus bifocal spectacles vs cyclopentolate plus SVLs · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Bifocal spectacles vs SVLs with timolol drops · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Tropicamide plus bifocal spectacles vs SVLs · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Comparison (intervention vs comparator) · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Adverse effects · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Multifocal vs single vision lens spectacles · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Peripheral plus spectacles vs single vision lens spectacles · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Bifocal vs single vision soft contact lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Rigid gas permeable contact lenses vs spectacles or soft contact lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Orthokeratology contact lenses vs single vision lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Spherical aberration soft contact lenses vs single vision soft contact lenses · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Antimuscarinic agents vs placebo · children with myopia (nearsightedness)
1 finding from 1 review