Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,017 questions · 1,061 findings · 131 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 193 · 18.2%GRADE not reported 65 · 6.1%Very low 237 · 22.3%Low 325 · 30.6%Moderate 187 · 17.6%High 54 · 5.1%

Paracervical vs intravenous diazepam/pethidine analgesia

Serious maternal morbidity · women with persistent or prolonged retention of placenta

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia/analgesia for manual removal of retained placenta 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Paracervical vs intravenous diazepam/pethidine analgesia

Providers' satisfaction with the procedure · women with persistent or prolonged retention of placenta

It is very uncertain whether paracervical block changes providers' satisfaction with the procedure compared with intravenous diazepam/pethidine analgesia (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia/analgesia for manual removal of retained placenta 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.5 [0.71, 3.16]
1 study · 30 participants
Very low

Paracervical vs intravenous diazepam/pethidine analgesia

Women's satisfaction with the procedure · women with persistent or prolonged retention of placenta

It is very uncertain whether paracervical block changes women's satisfaction with the procedure compared with intravenous diazepam/pethidine analgesia (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Anaesthesia/analgesia for manual removal of retained placenta 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.82 [0.49, 1.37]
1 study · 30 participants
Very low

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

Catheter‐related blood stream infection · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in catheter‐related blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.61 [0.08, 4.68]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Low

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

Thrombophlebitis (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in thrombophlebitis (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.07 [0.93, 1.25]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Moderate

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

Thrombophlebitis (per device days) (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in thrombophlebitis (per device days) (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.9 [0.76, 1.08]
6 studies · 32709 participants
Moderate

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

All‐cause blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in all‐cause blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.47 [0.15, 1.53]
1 study · 3283 participants
Moderate

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

Cost of hospitalisation · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 4244 participants
Moderate

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

Infiltration (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Catheter blockage (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Major complications · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Mortality within the longest · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Length of hospital stay · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Surgery‐related complications (during longest · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Non‐surgery‐related complications (during longest · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Renal failure · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Quality of surgical recovery assessed in any way (e.g. as a surgical recovery score) (during longest · adults receiving intravenous fluids while undergoing major non‐cardiac surgery

1 finding from 1 review

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

Seizure freedom · Children with acute tonic‐clonic seizures

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Time from drug administration to stopping of seizures · Children with acute tonic‐clonic seizures

1 finding from 1 review

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

Incidence of respiratory depression · Children with acute tonic‐clonic seizures

1 finding from 1 review

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