What do systematic reviews say?

Decompressive craniectomy vs medical treatment

Decompressive craniectomy may leads to higher 'Unfavorable outcome' as per original Cochrane protocol at 6 months compared with medical treatment only (low certainty).

• Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1
  3 studies · 571 participants
  Low

Decompressive craniectomy vs medical treatment

Decompressive craniectomy showed no clear difference in 'Unfavorable outcome' as per original Cochrane protocol ‐ at 12 months compared with medical treatment only (high certainty).

• Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.95 [0.83, 1.09]
  1 study · 373 participants
  High

Decompressive craniectomy vs medical treatment

Decompressive craniectomy showed no clear difference in changes in ICP from randomization up to 48 h compared with medical treatment only (moderate certainty).

• Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 182 participants
  Moderate

Decompressive craniectomy vs medical treatment

• Decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of high intracranial pressure in closed traumatic brain injury 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 544 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  16 studies · 6977 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  18 studies · 6243 participants
  High

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  18 studies · 8698 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  9 studies · 2396 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  26 studies · 13088 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  7 studies · 1639 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

• Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  8 studies · 4565 participants
  Moderate

G‐CSF vs placebo

It is very uncertain whether G‐CSF changes overall survival compared with placebo (very low certainty).

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.8 [0.44, 1.46]
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low

GM-CSF vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

GM-CSF vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

GM-CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 118 participants
  Low

GM-CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 149 participants
  Low

GM-CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 31 participants
  Low

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 111 participants
  Very low

G‐CSF vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found