Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,166 questions · 1,249 findings · 76 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 378 · 30.3%GRADE not reported 61 · 4.9%Very low 377 · 30.2%Low 284 · 22.7%Moderate 120 · 9.6%High 29 · 2.3%

Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone

Quality of life ‐ not measured · patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone

Self‐efficacy · patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers

1 finding from 1 review

Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 60 participants
Low

Summary of findings: one active intervention vs other active intervention

ADL outcome · people with stroke

2 findings from 1 review

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 186 participants
Low
Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 451 participants
Moderate

Summary of findings: one active intervention vs other active intervention

3.1.3 Includes musculoskeletal versus does not include musculoskeletal Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes · people with stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 103 participants
Low

Summary of findings: one active intervention vs other active intervention

3.2.1 Includes functional training versus does not include functional training Motor function scales Immediate outcomes · people with stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 188 participants
Low

Summary of findings: one active intervention vs other active intervention

3.2.2 Includes neurophysiological versus does not include neurophysiological Motor function scales Immediate outcomes · people with stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
8 studies · 506 participants
Moderate

Summary of findings: one active intervention vs other active intervention

3.2.3 Includes musculoskeletal versus does not include musculoskeletal Motor function scales Immediate outcomes · people with stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 81 participants
Low

Summary of findings ‐ computerised learning vs no intervention

Compliance or adherence to the trial intervention (including satisfaction for it) · adults and children with hemophilia

1 finding from 1 review

Psychological interventions for people with hemophilia 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 17 participants
Very low

Summary of findings ‐ computerised learning vs no intervention

Cost of psychological intervention · adults and children with hemophilia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Psychological interventions for people with hemophilia 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Elemental diet · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Mean GI symptom scores (IBDQ‐B) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 50 participants
Low

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Acute and late GI toxicity (grade 2+) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Diarrhoea (grade 2+) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in diarrhoea (grade 2+) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.79 [0.45, 1.38]
1 study · 50 participants
Low

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

QoL · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in QOL scores (IBDQ) (higher scores better) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
MD 4.6
1 study · 50 participants
Low
Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 119 participants
GRADE not reported
Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
MD 2.4
1 study · 76 participants
Low

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Lactose‐restricted diet · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Diarrhoea (grade 1+) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in diarrhoea (grade 1+) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.74 [0.45, 1.23]
1 study · 119 participants
Low

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

High‐fibre diet · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Low‐fibre diet · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Low‐fat diet · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Intervention diet vs usual on‐treatment diet

Mean GI symptom scores (Vaizey scale) (higher scores better) · People undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for urological, gynaecological or colorectal cancer

Summary of findings: Diet interventions showed no clear difference in mean GI symptom scores (Vaizey scale) (higher scores better) compared with usual on‐treatment diet (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce acute and late adverse gastrointestinal effects of pelvic radiotherapy for primary pelvic… 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 70 participants
Low