evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

143 questions · 151 findings · 17 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 21 · 13.9%GRADE not reported 39 · 25.8%Very low 34 · 22.5%Low 45 · 29.8%Moderate 12 · 7.9%High 0 · 0%

Surfactant administration via laryngeal mask airway (S‐LMA) vs surfactant administration via endotracheal tube (ETT) with the intent to rapidly extubate (InSurE)

Neurosensory disability in survivors · preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surfactant administration via laryngeal mask airway (S‐LMA) vs surfactant administration through an endotracheal tube (S‐ETT)

Death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia · preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surfactant administration via laryngeal mask airway (S‐LMA) vs surfactant administration through an endotracheal tube (S‐ETT)

Need for mechanical ventilation · preterm infants with or at risk of respiratory distress syndrome

Surfactant administration via laryngeal mask airway (S‐LMA) may leads to lower mechanical ventilation at any time Any time to discharge compared with surfactant administration via endotracheal tube (ETT) with… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in overjet compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical miniplates with facemask vs Surgical miniplates with Class III elastics

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Surgical miniplates with facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgical miniplates with Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

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

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)

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes ANB compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates); GRADE not reported.

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

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

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (low certainty).

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)

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse chin cup

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with reverse chin cup; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review