Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,087 questions · 2,360 findings · 390 reviews

No studies found 224 · 9.5%GRADE not reported 603 · 25.6%Very low 555 · 23.5%Low 548 · 23.2%Moderate 312 · 13.2%High 118 · 5%

Early shoulder mobilising exercises vs delayed shoulder mobilising exercises

Lymphoedema ‐ medium term · patients at risk for secondary upper limb lymphoedema after breast cancer treatment

It is very uncertain whether early shoulder mobilising exercises changes lymphoedema ‐ medium term compared with delayed shoulder mobilising exercises (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early loading of mini-screw implant vs Delayed loading of mini-screw implant

Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

Early loading of mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with delayed loading of mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Very early cerebral revascularization vs delayed treatment

Perioperative death and strokes · people with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis

It is very uncertain whether very early cerebral revascularization changes stroke and Death < 30 days compared with delayed treatment (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear may leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early short‐term feeding: hydrolysed formula vs human milk feeding ‐ low‐risk infants

All allergic disease ‐ childhood (incidence) · infants not selected for allergic disease risk.

It is very uncertain whether early short‐term feeding: hydrolysed formula changes all allergic disease ‐ childhood (incidence) compared with human milk feeding ‐ low‐risk infants (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early short‐term feeding: hydrolysed formula vs cow's milk formula

Food allergy ‐ childhood (incidence) · infants not selected for allergic disease risk.

It is very uncertain whether early short‐term feeding: hydrolysed formula changes food allergy ‐ childhood (incidence) compared with cow's milk formula ‐ low‐risk infants (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early short‐term feeding: hydrolysed formula vs cow's milk formula

Cow's milk allergy ‐ infancy (incidence) · infants not selected for allergic disease risk.

It is very uncertain whether early short‐term feeding: hydrolysed formula changes cow's milk allergy ‐ infancy (incidence) compared with cow's milk formula ‐ low‐risk infants (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review