Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4,695 questions · 4,979 findings · 433 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 998 · 20%GRADE not reported 1,140 · 22.9%Very low 1,024 · 20.6%Low 1,029 · 20.7%Moderate 636 · 12.8%High 152 · 3.1%

Oral vs intramuscular vitamin B12

Socioeconomic effects

1 finding from 1 review

Oral vitamin B₁₂ versus intramuscular vitamin B₁₂ for vitamin B₁₂ deficiency 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 60 participants
Low

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Disease-free survival · Patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy

Oral showed no clear difference in disease‐free survival compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.93 [0.87, 1]
7 studies · 8903 participants
Moderate

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia · Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy

Oral may leads to lower grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.17 [0.15, 0.18]
29 studies · 11794 participants
Low

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Overall survival · Patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy

Oral showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.92 [0.84, 1]
7 studies · 8902 participants
High

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea · Patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy

It is very uncertain whether oral changes grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.12 [0.99, 1.25]
9 studies · 9551 participants
Very low

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Hand‐foot syndrome (grade ≥ 3) · Patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy

Oral may leads to higher grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 4.59 [2.97, 7.1]
5 studies · 5731 participants
Low

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia · Patients treated with curative intent for colorectal cancer with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy

Oral probably leads to lower grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.14 [0.11, 0.16]
7 studies · 8087 participants
Moderate

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Progression‐free survival · Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy

Oral probably leads to higher progression‐free survival compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 1.06 [1.02, 1.11]
23 studies · 9927 participants
Moderate

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Overall survival · Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy

Oral showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 1.02 [0.99, 1.05]
29 studies · 12079 participants
High

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea · Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy

Oral may leads to higher grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.66 [1.5, 1.84]
30 studies · 11997 participants
Low

Oral vs intravenous fluoropyrimidines

Hand‐foot syndrome (grade ≥ 3) · Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer with chemotherapy

Oral probably leads to higher grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome compared with intravenous fluoropyrimidines (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 3.92 [2.84, 5.43]
18 studies · 6481 participants
Moderate

Oral vs IV antibiotics

All‐cause mortality · people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia

Oral showed no clear difference in mortality compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.95 [0.54, 1.68]
9 studies · 1392 participants
Moderate

Oral vs IV antibiotics

Treatment failure · people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia

Oral showed no clear difference in treatment failure compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.96 [0.86, 1.06]
22 studies · 3142 participants
Moderate

Oral vs IV antibiotics

Treatment failure ‐ per protocol analysis · people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia

Oral showed no clear difference in treatment failure ‐ per protocol analysis compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.11]
22 studies · 2912 participants
Moderate

Oral vs IV antibiotics

Adverse events requiring discontinuation of antibiotics · people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia

Oral showed no clear difference in adverse events requiring discontinuation of antibiotics compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.45 [0.61, 3.46]
15 studies · 1823 participants
Low

Oral vs IV antibiotics

Treatment failure not dt modification in update · people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia

Oral showed no clear difference in treatment failure not dt modification in update compared with intravenous antibiotic therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.95 [0.85, 1.06]
21 studies · 3041 participants
Moderate

Oral care protocol vs usual care or no treatment

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

Oral care protocol showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.91 [0.82, 1.02]
1 study · 150 participants
GRADE not reported

Oral care protocol vs usual care or no treatment

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

Oral care protocol showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.84 [0.69, 1.04]
1 study · 150 participants
GRADE not reported

Oral care protocol vs usual care or no treatment

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

Oral care protocol led to lower oral mucositis (any severity) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
Median 28 days
RR 0.62 [0.43, 0.91]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the prevention and treatment of herpes simplex virus in patients being treated for cancer 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 0.78 [0.26, 2.38]
2 studies · 181 participants
GRADE not reported