What do systematic reviews say?

Shock wave therapy vs placebo

Shock wave therapy probably leads to higher function Multiple scalese translated to Constant 0–100 scale (100… compared with placebo (moderate certainty).

• Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  SMD 0.62 [0.13, 1.11]
  9 studies · 612 participants
  Moderate

Shock wave therapy vs placebo

Shock wave therapy showed no clear difference in participant‐reported success compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.59 [0.87, 2.91]
  6 studies · 287 participants
  Low

Shock wave therapy vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Shock wave therapy vs placebo

Shock wave therapy showed no clear difference in number of participant withdrawals due to adverse events or treatment… compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.75 [0.43, 1.31]
  7 studies · 581 participants
  Low

Shock wave therapy vs placebo

Shock wave therapy may leads to higher number of participants experiencing any adverse event compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Shock wave therapy for rotator cuff disease with or without calcification 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 3.61 [2, 6.52]
  5 studies · 295 participants
  Low

Biological therapy vs placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment

Biological therapy showed no clear difference in any adverse events compared with placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment (high certainty).

• Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago‐gastric junction adenocarcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.08 [1, 1.17]
  1 study · 491 participants
  High

Biological therapy vs placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment

• Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago‐gastric junction adenocarcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 283 participants
  Low

Biological therapy vs placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment

Biological therapy leads to lower overall survival compared with placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment (high certainty).

• Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago‐gastric junction adenocarcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.55 [0.41, 0.73]
  3 studies · 781 participants
  High

Biological therapy vs placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment

Biological therapy probably leads to lower progression‐free survival compared with placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment (moderate certainty).

• Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago‐gastric junction adenocarcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.33 [0.19, 0.57]
  3 studies · 781 participants
  Moderate

Biological therapy vs placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment

Biological therapy showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment (low certainty).

• Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago‐gastric junction adenocarcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.14 [0.95, 1.37]
  2 studies · 638 participants
  Low

Biological therapy vs placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment

Biological therapy may leads to higher tumour response rate compared with placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment (low certainty).

• Salvage systemic therapy for advanced gastric and oesophago‐gastric junction adenocarcinoma 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.12 [1.23, 21.27]
  3 studies · 687 participants
  Low

Positional therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 20 participants
  Low

Positional therapy vs inactive control

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 101 participants
  Low

Positional therapy vs inactive control

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 101 participants
  Low

Positional therapy vs inactive control

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 86 participants
  Moderate

Positional therapy vs inactive control

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 30 participants
  Low

Positional therapy vs inactive control

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 86 participants
  Very low

Positional therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 33 participants
  Low

Positional therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 20 participants
  Moderate

Positional therapy vs continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)

• Positional therapy for obstructive sleep apnoea 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported