evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,345 questions · 4,525 findings · 483 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,024 · 22.6%GRADE not reported 388 · 8.6%Very low 1,172 · 25.9%Low 1,227 · 27.1%Moderate 576 · 12.7%High 138 · 3%

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Restoration of sexual activity · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Reduction in number of flares · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Reduction in severity of flares · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically-anchored orthodontic treatment (miniplates) vs no intervention

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) vs moderate NMB

Serious adverse events (SAEs) start of surgery until 8 hours after surgery · adults undergoing intra‐ and transperitoneal laparoscopic procedures

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) changes serious adverse events (SAEs) start of surgery until 8 hours after… compared with moderate NMB (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask may leads to higher perceived need for surgery in adulthood compared with untreated control (no treatment) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical vs non‐surgical treatment

Subsequent requirement for surgery (re‐operations) for complications Incidence · people with lateral patellar dislocation

It is very uncertain whether surgical changes subsequent requirement for surgery (reoperations) for complicationsa… compared with non‐surgical treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single‐incision slings vs retropubic minimally‐invasive slings

Number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision · women with urinary incontinence

It is very uncertain whether single‐incision slings changes number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with retropubic minimally‐invasive slings (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single‐incision slings vs transobturator minimally‐invasive slings

Number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision · women with urinary incontinence

Single‐incision slings showed no clear difference in number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with transobturator minimally‐invasive slings (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review