What do systematic reviews say?

Computer glasses vs Ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses

It is very uncertain whether computer glasses changes eyestrain (yes/no) compared with ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses (very low certainty).

• Optical correction of refractive error for preventing and treating eye symptoms in computer users 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.95 [0.67, 1.34]
  1 study · 24 participants
  Very low

Computer glasses vs Ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses

It is very uncertain whether computer glasses changes headache (yes/no) compared with ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses (very low certainty).

• Optical correction of refractive error for preventing and treating eye symptoms in computer users 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.92 [0.52, 1.63]
  1 study · 24 participants
  Very low

Computer glasses vs Ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses

It is very uncertain whether computer glasses changes upset stomach (yes/no) compared with ergonomic assessment plus habitual (computer) glasses (very low certainty).

• Optical correction of refractive error for preventing and treating eye symptoms in computer users 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.5 [0.14, 1.79]
  1 study · 24 participants
  Very low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve… showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone? (low certainty).

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.87 [0.76, 1.01]
  15 studies · 3169 participants
  Low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve… showed no clear difference in heart failure mortality compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone? (low certainty).

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.84 [0.54, 1.3]
  6 studies · 853 participants
  Low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve… may leads to lower heart failure admissions compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone? (low certainty).

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.7 [0.61, 0.8]
  10 studies · 1928 participants
  Low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve… showed no clear difference in all‐cause admissions compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone? (low certainty).

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.93 [0.84, 1.03]
  6 studies · 1142 participants
  Low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  6 studies · 1144 participants
  Low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  4 studies · 1051 participants
  Low

Does treatment guided by serial BNP or NT‐proBNP monitoring improve outcomes vs treatment guided by clinical assessment alone?

• B‐type natriuretic peptide‐guided treatment for heart failure 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  8 studies · 1812 participants
  Very low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 242 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 242 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 179 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 190 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 338 participants
  Low

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in vaginal birth compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.2]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in caesarean delivery compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.82 [0.5, 1.35]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in neonatal admission to NICU compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.67 [0.41, 6.83]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score probably leads to lower need of misoprostol for cervical ripening compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.53 [0.42, 0.67]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in meconium staining of amniotic fluid compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.75 [0.37, 1.51]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate