evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,760 questions · 8,065 findings · 1,036 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,686 · 20.9%GRADE not reported 675 · 8.4%Very low 1,953 · 24.2%Low 2,048 · 25.4%Moderate 1,296 · 16.1%High 407 · 5%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA)

Symptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis measured as asymptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis (up to 3 months) · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

It is very uncertain whether low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) changes symptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis measured as asymptomatic… compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA)

Major bleeding · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

It is very uncertain whether low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) changes major bleeding (up to 3 months) compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA)

Minor bleeding · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

It is very uncertain whether low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) changes minor bleeding (up to 3 months) compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA)

Thrombocytopenia (up to 3 months)n · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) probably leads to higher thrombocytopenia (up to 3 months)n compared with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs no LMWH

Symptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis (up to 3 months) · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) probably leads to lower symptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis (up to 3 months) compared with no LMWH (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs no LMWH

Symptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis measured as asymptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis (up to 3 months) · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

It is very uncertain whether low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) changes symptomatic catheter‐related thrombosis measured as asymptomatic… compared with no LMWH (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low molecular weight heparin vs no LMWH

Antibiotic versus heparin only lock/flush solution: catheter‐related infections · people with cancer with thrombosis prophylaxis and central venous catheters

Low‐molecular‐weight heparin (LMWH) showed no clear difference in catheter‐related infection (up to 3 months) compared with no LMWH (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Comparison 7: Structured GP follow‐up vs TAU or another comparator

Repetition of SH at post‐intervention · self‐harm in adults

Comparison 7: Structured GP follow‐up showed no clear difference in repetition of SH at post‐intervention (hospital records) compared with TAU or another comparator (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment

Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer · individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development

Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence Visual skin assessment compared with ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment

Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 · individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development

Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 1 compared with ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment vs Ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment

Severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 · individuals at risk of pressure ulcer development

Waterlow pressure ulcer risk assessment showed no clear difference in severity of new pressure ulcers ‐ Stage 2 compared with ramstadius pressure ulcer risk assessment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review