Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3,018 questions · 3,100 findings · 369 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 774 · 25%GRADE not reported 108 · 3.5%Very low 727 · 23.5%Low 840 · 27.1%Moderate 474 · 15.3%High 177 · 5.7%

FIBRINOGEN: Prophylactic trials: intervention vs haemostatically active control

Arterial thromboembolic events ‐ Duration of hospital stay (whole population) · the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

1 finding from 1 review

Pro‐coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 49 participants
Low

FIBRINOGEN: Prophylactic trials: intervention vs haemostatically active control

Venous thromboembolic events · the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

1 finding from 1 review

Pro‐coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 49 participants
Low

FIBRINOGEN: Prophylactic trials: intervention vs haemostatically active control

Venous thromboembolic events Duration of hospital stay (whole population) · the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

1 finding from 1 review

Pro‐coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 49 participants
Low

FIBRINOGEN: Prophylactic trials: intervention vs inactive control

Venous thromboembolic events Up to 30 days post‐operatively · the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

1 finding from 1 review

Pro‐coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 122 participants
Low

FIBRINOGEN: Prophylactic trials: intervention vs inactive control

Arterial thrombotic events Up to 4 days post‐operatively · the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

1 finding from 1 review

Pro‐coagulant haemostatic factors for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in people without haemophilia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 80 participants
Moderate

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

HRQOL RosaQoL · Participants with rosacea

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 83 participants
Moderate

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Participant‐assessed improvement in rosacea severity ‐ not measured · Participants with rosacea

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Proportion of participants with adverse event · Participants with rosacea

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel probably leads to higher proportion of participants with adverse event compared with placebo (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.45 [1.42, 4.23]
1 study · 83 participants
Moderate

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Physician‐assessed improvement in rosacea severity · Participants with rosacea

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 83 participants
Moderate

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Assessment of erythema or telangiectasia · Participants with rosacea

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel showed no clear difference in assessment of erythema or telangiectasia compared with placebo (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.71 [0.7, 4.18]
1 study · 83 participants
Moderate

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Lesion count · Participants with rosacea

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 83 participants
Moderate

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Time needed until improvement of the skin lesions · Participants with rosacea

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Clindamycin phosphate 1.2% + tretinoin 0.025% gel vs placebo

Duration of remission ‐ not measured · Participants with rosacea

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for rosacea 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Change in visual acuity (logMAR) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · macular edema in diabetes

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 560 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Gain 3+ lines of visual acuity at 1 year · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg probably leads to higher gain of three or more lines visual acuity ‐ 12 months compared with sham (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.79 [1.16, 2.78]
1 study · 560 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Change in retinal thickness (micron) ‐ 12 months (negative is better) · macular edema in diabetes

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 560 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Cataract progression ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg probably leads to higher cataract progression ‐ 24 months compared with sham (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.63 [1.35, 1.97]
1 study · 355 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Use of IOP‐lowering medications ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg probably leads to higher use of IOP‐lowering medications ‐ 24 months compared with sham (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.72 [1.87, 3.98]
1 study · 558 participants
Moderate

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg vs sham

Surgery for glaucoma ‐ 24 months · macular edema in diabetes

Intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant 0.19 mg may leads to higher surgery for glaucoma ‐ 24 months compared with sham (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 9.54 [1.28, 70.93]
1 study · 558 participants
Low

Intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg vs sham

Visual acuity · macular edema in diabetes

1 finding from 1 review

Intravitreal steroids for macular edema in diabetes 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low