Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,192 questions · 1,243 findings · 151 reviews

No studies found 252 · 20.3%GRADE not reported 180 · 14.5%Very low 291 · 23.4%Low 282 · 22.7%Moderate 174 · 14%High 64 · 5.1%

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Time taken for the canine to erupt into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional suburethral sling operation vs a single‐incision sling (mini‐sling)

Number of continent (dry) women (any definition) in the medium term (1 to 5 years) · women with urinary incontinence

It is very uncertain whether traditional suburethral sling operation changes number of continent (dry) women (any definition) in the medium term… compared with a single‐incision sling (mini‐sling) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional suburethral sling operation vs a single‐incision sling (mini‐sling)

Perioperative surgical complications ‐ bladder perforation · women with urinary incontinence

It is very uncertain whether traditional suburethral sling operation changes perioperative surgical complications ‐ bladder perforation compared with a single‐incision sling (mini‐sling) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Procedures: doffing with double gloves vs doffing with single gloves

Contamination: virus detected ‐ All body parts · healthcare workers

It is very uncertain whether procedures: doffing with double gloves changes contamination: virus detected ‐ all body parts compared with doffing with single gloves (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Procedures: doffing with double gloves vs doffing with single gloves

Contamination: virus detected ‐ face · healthcare workers

It is very uncertain whether procedures: doffing with double gloves changes contamination: virus detected ‐ face compared with doffing with single gloves (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Procedures: doffing with double gloves vs doffing with single gloves

Contamination: virus detected ‐ shirt · healthcare workers

It is very uncertain whether procedures: doffing with double gloves changes contamination: virus detected ‐ shirt compared with doffing with single gloves (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Procedures: doffing with double gloves vs doffing with single gloves

Contamination: virus detected ‐ pants · healthcare workers

It is very uncertain whether procedures: doffing with double gloves changes contamination: virus detected ‐ pants compared with doffing with single gloves (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Procedures: doffing with double gloves vs doffing with single gloves

Compliance with guidance ‐ Noncompliance: any error · healthcare workers

It is very uncertain whether procedures: doffing with double gloves changes non‐compliance: any error compared with doffing with single gloves (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Procedures: doffing with double gloves vs doffing with single gloves

Contamination with fluorescent · healthcare workers

It is very uncertain whether procedures: doffing with double gloves changes contamination with fluorescent compared with doffing with single gloves (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review