What do systematic reviews say?

Summary of findings ‐ dual therapy: tezacaftor plus ivacaftor vs placebo or ivacaftor alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ dual therapy: tezacaftor plus ivacaftor vs placebo or ivacaftor alone

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 946 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ dual therapy: tezacaftor plus ivacaftor vs placebo or ivacaftor alone

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 944 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ dual therapy: tezacaftor plus ivacaftor vs placebo or ivacaftor alone

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 944 participants
  Low

Summary of findings ‐ dual therapy: tezacaftor plus ivacaftor vs placebo or ivacaftor alone

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  8 studies · 1057 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ dual therapy: tezacaftor plus ivacaftor vs placebo or ivacaftor alone

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 506 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 258 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 258 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor showed no clear difference in adverse events: number of participants with treatment‐emergent… compared with control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor) (moderate certainty).

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.04 [0.53, 2.04]
  1 study · 258 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone

• Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 60 participants
  GRADE not reported

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone

It is very uncertain whether ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis changes amputation rate compared with thrombolysis alone (very low certainty).

• Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.14 [0.17, 7.59]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Very low

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone

It is very uncertain whether ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis changes major bleeding compared with thrombolysis alone (very low certainty).

• Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.71 [0.31, 9.53]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Very low

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone

It is very uncertain whether ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis changes clinical success ‐ increase in ABI by at least 0.2 compared with thrombolysis alone (very low certainty).

• Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.94, 1.07]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Very low

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone

• Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 60 participants
  GRADE not reported

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone

It is very uncertain whether ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis changes adverse events compared with thrombolysis alone (very low certainty).

• Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.69 [0.28, 113.72]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Very low

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible studies; planned comparative analysis (COE vs COE with blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found