Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,085 questions · 1,232 findings · 66 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 218 · 17.7%GRADE not reported 745 · 60.5%Very low 179 · 14.5%Low 65 · 5.3%Moderate 25 · 2%High 0 · 0%

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Removal of broken (fractured) instruments from the root canal · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Total time required to complete the clinical procedure · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed procedure time; such outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Repair of root perforations · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    >=1 year after treatment
    None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted (three potentially eligible trials were identified from 1234 records; all were excluded).
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Neutron radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Neutron radiotherapy showed no clear difference in disease free survival compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Neutron radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Neutron radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Radiotherapy (morning) vs Afternoon radiotherapy

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Morning radiotherapy showed no clear difference in total mortality compared with afternoon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Neutron radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Neutron radiotherapy showed no clear difference in total mortality compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Radiotherapy (morning) vs Afternoon radiotherapy

Quality of life · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review

Radiotherapy (morning) vs Afternoon radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Morning radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with afternoon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes vs Cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes vs Cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes vs Cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Split‐course radiotherapy (8 fractions, 30 Gy) vs Accelerated radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Split-course radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with accelerated radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Split‐course radiotherapy (8 fractions, 30 Gy) vs Accelerated radiotherapy

Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Split-course radiotherapy showed no clear difference in disease free survival compared with accelerated radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Split‐course radiotherapy (8 fractions, 30 Gy) vs Accelerated radiotherapy

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Split-course radiotherapy showed no clear difference in total mortality compared with accelerated radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy led to lower total mortality compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review