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

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 vs higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes

Lymphoma/PTLD · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Low showed no clear difference in lymphoma/PTLD compared with higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low vs higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes

Acne/rash · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Low showed no clear difference in acne/rash compared with higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low vs higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes

Hypercholesterolaemia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Low probably leads to lower hypercholesterolaemia compared with higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low vs higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes

Anaemia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Low may leads to lower anaemia compared with higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low vs higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes

Thrombocytopenia · primary immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients

Low may leads to lower thrombocytopenia compared with higher dose target of rapamycin inhibitor (TOR‐ I): secondary outcomes (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to lower lower molars to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to lower lower molars to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower vs higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations during resuscitation of preterm infants at birth

Mortality, near term corrected age or discharge · preterm infants

Lower showed no clear difference in mortality, near term corrected age or discharge compared with higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower vs higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations during resuscitation of preterm infants at birth

Neurodevelopmental disability · preterm infants

Lower showed no clear difference in neurodevelopmental disability compared with higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower vs higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations during resuscitation of preterm infants at birth

Intubation in the delivery room · preterm infants

Lower showed no clear difference in intubation in the delivery room compared with higher oxygen concentrations titrated to target oxygen saturations… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review