evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

167 questions · 170 findings · 8 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 21 · 12.4%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 4.1%Low 34 · 20%Moderate 84 · 49.4%High 24 · 14.1%

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis may leads to higher proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis probably leads to higher all adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 1.5 mg/kg weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis probably leads to higher all adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Serious adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicuzimab 3.0 mg/kg bi‐weekly prophylaxis showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly vs emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks

Proportion with zero bleeds · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with zero bleeds compared with emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab prophylaxis vs on‐demand therapy

Proportion with zero bleeds · people with inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab prophylaxis probably leads to higher proportion with zero bleeds compared with on‐demand therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly vs emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks

All adverse events · people without inhibitors

Summary of findings table ‐ Emicizumab 1.5 mg/kg once weekly showed no clear difference in all adverse events compared with emicizumab 3.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review