Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

577 questions · 585 findings · 57 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 61 · 10.4%GRADE not reported 46 · 7.9%Very low 206 · 35.2%Low 210 · 35.9%Moderate 52 · 8.9%High 10 · 1.7%

Intervention not reported

Adverse events · people with advanced cancer with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (MBO)

1 finding from 1 review

Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
9 studies · 280 participants
Very low

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

All‐cause mortality

Heparin prophylaxis showed no clear difference in mortality compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.98 [0.93, 1.03]
18 studies · 9575 participants
Moderate
Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.99 [0.96, 1.01]
14 studies · 5229 participants
Moderate

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Symptomatic VTE

Heparin prophylaxis leads to lower symptomatic VTE compared with no prophylaxis (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.56 [0.47, 0.68]
16 studies · 9036 participants
High

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Major bleeding

Heparin prophylaxis showed no clear difference in major bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.3 [0.94, 1.79]
18 studies · 9592 participants
Moderate

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Minor bleeding

Heparin prophylaxis leads to higher minor bleeding compared with no prophylaxis (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.7 [1.13, 2.55]
16 studies · 9245 participants
High

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Thrombocytopenia

Heparin prophylaxis showed no clear difference in thrombocytopenia compared with no prophylaxis (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.69 [0.37, 1.27]
12 studies · 5832 participants
Moderate

Heparin prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis

Quality of life impairment

1 finding from 1 review

Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 2241 participants
Moderate

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (IV/IM)

Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 216 participants
Very low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (PCA)

Additional analgesia required (escape analgesia) · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

Remifentanil (PCA) showed no clear difference in additional analgesia required (escape analgesia) compared with another opioid (PCA) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.76 [0.45, 1.28]
3 studies · 215 participants
Low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (PCA)

Caesarean section · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

It is very uncertain whether remifentanil (PCA) changes rate of caesarean delivery compared with another opioid (PCA) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.78 [0.99, 7.82]
2 studies · 143 participants
Very low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (PCA)

Maternal apnoea · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (PCA)

Maternal respiratory depression (< 8 breaths/min) · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
0 studies · 0 participants
GRADE not reported

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (PCA)

Low Apgar score · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 17 participants
Very low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs epidural/CSE

Satisfaction with pain relief · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 2135 participants
Very low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs epidural/CSE

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
6 studies · 235 participants
Low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs epidural/CSE

Additional analgesia required (escape analgesia) · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

Remifentanil (PCA) probably leads to higher additional analgesia required compared with epidural/CSE (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 9.27 [3.73, 23.03]
6 studies · 1037 participants
Moderate

Remifentanil (PCA) vs epidural/CSE

Caesarean section · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

Remifentanil (PCA) showed no clear difference in rate of caesarean delivery compared with epidural/CSE (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1 [0.82, 1.22]
9 studies · 1578 participants
Moderate

Remifentanil (PCA) vs epidural/CSE

Maternal apnoea · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 38 participants
Very low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs another opioid (IV/IM)

Pain intensity VAS (0 to 100; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 180 participants
Very low

Remifentanil (PCA) vs epidural/CSE

Maternal respiratory depression (< 9, < 8 breaths/min) · women in labour with planned vaginal delivery

Remifentanil (PCA) showed no clear difference in maternal respiratory depression (< 9, < 8 breaths/min) compared with epidural/CSE (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient‐controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.91 [0.51, 1.62]
3 studies · 687 participants
Low