Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery
Disease-free survival · people with liver metastases
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 30 participantsVery low
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
3,971 questions · 9,849 findings · 853 reviews
No studies found 1,150 · 11.7%GRADE not reported 3,387 · 34.4%Very low 1,963 · 19.9%Low 1,809 · 18.4%Moderate 1,207 · 12.3%High 333 · 3.4%
Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation
All‐cause mortality · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes all‐cause mortality compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.62 [0.26, 1.47]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation
Time to mortality (overall survival) · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes time to mortality (overall survival) compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- HR 0.63 [0.23, 1.73]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation
Health‐related quality of life · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation
Any adverse events or complications · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes any adverse events or complications compared with radiofrequency ablation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- RR 0.19 [0.01, 3.67]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Microwave coagulation vs radiofrequency ablation
Disease-free survival · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Microwave coagulation in addition to conventional transarterial chemoembolisation vs chemoembolisation
Time to mortality · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Microwave coagulation in addition to conventional transarterial chemoembolisation vs chemoembolisation
Health‐related quality of life · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Microwave coagulation in addition to conventional transarterial chemoembolisation vs chemoembolisation
Any adverse events or complications · people with liver metastases
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Microwave coagulation in addition to conventional transarterial chemoembolisation vs chemoembolisation
Disease-free survival · people with liver metastases
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery
All‐cause mortality · people with liver metastases
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 40 participantsGRADE not reported
Microwave coagulation vs conventional surgery
Time to mortality (overall survival) · people with liver metastases
It is very uncertain whether microwave coagulation changes time to mortality (overall survival) compared with conventional surgery (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- HR 0.91 [0.39, 2.15]1 study · 30 participantsVery low
Intervention not reported
Intervention (no. of studies/participants) · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Intervention not reported
Alemtuzumab No direct evidence · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
The intervention leads to lower alemtuzumab No direct evidence (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.57 [0.47, 0.68]Studies not reportedHigh
Intervention not reported
Azathioprine (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 59 participants) · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes azathioprine (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 59 participants) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.77 [0.51, 1.18]1 study · 59 participantsVery low
Intervention not reported
Cladribine (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 1326 participants) · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
The intervention leads to lower cladribine (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 1326 participants) (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.53 [0.44, 0.64]1 study · 1326 participantsHigh
Intervention not reported
Fingolimod (Direct evidence; 2 RCTs; 2355 participants) · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
The intervention probably leads to lower fingolimod (Direct evidence; 2 RCTs; 2355 participants) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.54 [0.48, 0.6]2 studies · 2355 participantsModerate
Intervention not reported
Glatiramer acetate (Direct evidence; 3 RCsT; 1014 participants) · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
The intervention probably leads to lower glatiramer acetate (Direct evidence; 3 RCsT; 1014 participants) (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.84 [0.76, 0.93]3 participantsModerate
Intervention not reported
Immunoglobulins (Direct evidence; 2 RCTs; 192 participants) · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
The intervention may leads to lower immunoglobulins (Direct evidence; 2 RCTs; 192 participants) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 0.73 [0.59, 0.9]2 studies · 192 participantsLow
Intervention not reported
Interferon beta 1a‐1b No direct evidence · Patients with RRMS Interventions: alemtuzumab, azathriopine, cladribine, dimethylfumarate, fingolimod, glatiramer acetate,…
It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes interferon beta 1a‐1b No direct evidence (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.21 [0.66, 2.19]1 participantsVery low