Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,320 questions · 4,561 findings · 388 reviews

No studies found 1,138 · 25%GRADE not reported 886 · 19.4%Very low 1,014 · 22.2%Low 849 · 18.6%Moderate 543 · 11.9%High 131 · 2.9%

iron‐fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added vs fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron)

Respiratory infections (as measured by trialists) (only in children 2 to 11 years of age) · general population of all age groups (including pregnant women) from any country, over two years of age
1 finding from 1 review

iron‐fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added vs fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron)

All‐cause death (only in children 2 to 11 years of age) · general population of all age groups (including pregnant women) from any country, over two years of age
1 finding from 1 review

iron‐fortified wheat flour with or without other micronutrients added vs fortified wheat flour with same micronutrients (but not iron)

Infection or inflammation at individual level as measured by C‐reactive protein (CRP) (only in children 2 to 11 years of age) · general population of all age groups (including pregnant women) from any country, over two years of age
1 finding from 1 review

Multiple doses of deworming drugs vs placebo

Death (between ages 1 and 6 years) · public health programmes to regularly treat all children aged 16 years or less

Multiple doses of deworming drugs showed no clear difference in mortality (between ages 1 and 6 years) compared with placebo (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

AIS associated with HPV16/18 or 6/11/16/18 (age 15 to 26 years) · adolescent girls and women aged 15 to 45 years who were HPV16/18 negative before vaccination

The intervention probably leads to lower AIS associated with HPV16/18 or 6/11/16/18 (age 15 to 26 years) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Any CIN3+ irrespective of HPV type (age 15 to 26 years) · adolescent girls and women aged 15 to 45 years regardless of HPV DNA status at baseline

The intervention probably leads to lower any CIN3+ irrespective of HPV type (age 15 to 26 years) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Number of visits · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient perception: pain · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Economic factors · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review