What do systematic reviews say?

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement probably leads to higher infiltration (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

• Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.16 [1.06, 1.26]
  6 studies · 7123 participants
  Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement probably leads to higher catheter blockage (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

• Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.14 [1.01, 1.29]
  7 studies · 7323 participants
  Moderate

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

It is very uncertain whether perioperative restrictive fluid therapy changes major complications (during longest compared with goal‐directed fluid therapy (very low certainty).

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.61 [0.78, 3.34]
  5 studies · 484 participants
  Very low

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

It is very uncertain whether perioperative restrictive fluid therapy changes all‐cause mortality (during longest compared with goal‐directed fluid therapy (very low certainty).

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RD 0.03 [0, 0.06]
  6 studies · 544 participants
  Very low

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

It is very uncertain whether perioperative restrictive fluid therapy changes length of hospital stay (days) compared with goal‐directed fluid therapy (very low certainty).

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 464 participants
  Very low

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

It is very uncertain whether perioperative restrictive fluid therapy changes surgery‐related complications (during longest compared with goal‐directed fluid therapy (very low certainty).

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.54 [0.87, 2.72]
  4 studies · 364 participants
  Very low

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

It is very uncertain whether perioperative restrictive fluid therapy changes non‐surgery‐related complications (during longest compared with goal‐directed fluid therapy (very low certainty).

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.52, 1.93]
  1 study · 74 participants
  Very low

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

It is very uncertain whether perioperative restrictive fluid therapy changes renal failure (during longest compared with goal‐directed fluid therapy (very low certainty).

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.38 [0.57, 3.36]
  4 studies · 410 participants
  Very low

Perioperative restrictive fluid therapy vs goal‐directed fluid therapy

• Perioperative restrictive versus goal‐directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 74 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam showed no clear difference in seizure cessation compared with intravenous diazepam (high certainty).

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.91 [0.8, 1.03]
  1 study · 120 participants
  High

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 120 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 120 participants
  High

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ Buccal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ Intranasal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

Summary of findings ‐ Intranasal midazolam showed no clear difference in seizure cessation compared with intravenous diazepam (moderate certainty).

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.98 [0.91, 1.06]
  2 studies · 122 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ Intranasal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 122 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings ‐ Intranasal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 122 participants
  High

Summary of findings ‐ Intranasal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings ‐ Intranasal midazolam vs intravenous diazepam

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Drug management for acute tonic‐clonic convulsions including convulsive status epilepticus in children 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found