Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,005 questions · 1,053 findings · 151 reviews · Headline outcomes only

No studies found 275 · 26.1%GRADE not reported 150 · 14.2%Very low 271 · 25.7%Low 215 · 20.4%Moderate 105 · 10%High 37 · 3.5%

Intervention not reported

BEV+IRI (1 RCT, 79 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention leads to higher BEV+IRI (1 RCT, 79 participants) (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

BEV+VB111 (1 RCT, 128 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention leads to higher BEV+VB111 (1 RCT, 128 participants) (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

BEV+TRC 105 (1 RCT, 49 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention leads to higher BEV+TRC 105 (1 RCT, 49 participants) (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

FOM (1 RCT, 32 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention showed no clear difference in FOM (1 RCT, 32 participants); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

BEV+HSPPC96 1 RCTs; 53 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+HSPPC96 1 RCTs; 53 participants) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

BEV+ONA(1 RCT; 64 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+ONA(1 RCT; 64 participants) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

BEV+CAB (1 RCT; 58 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+CAB (1 RCT; 58 participants) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

BEV+DAS (2 RCTs, 83 participants) · people with any recurrence of glioblastoma Interventions: bevacizumab (BEV) Comparison: bevacizumab 9BEV), BEV+carboplatin (CAB),…

The intervention showed no clear difference in BEV+DAS (2 RCTs, 83 participants) (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

tDCS vs placebo or control

Secondary outcome measure: mean upper extremity function at the end of the intervention periodClinical measures of upper extremity function. Scale from: 0 to infinity. · patients with improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning at the end of follow‐up, in people after stroke
1 finding from 1 review

tDCS vs placebo or control

Secondary outcome measure: lower extremity function at the end of · patients with improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning at the end of follow‐up, in people after stroke

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

tDCS vs placebo or control

Secondary outcome measure: cognitive abilities at the end of · patients with improving activities of daily living, and physical and cognitive functioning at the end of follow‐up, in people after stroke

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review