Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,191 questions · 2,354 findings · 362 reviews

No studies found 323 · 13.7%GRADE not reported 382 · 16.2%Very low 555 · 23.6%Low 597 · 25.4%Moderate 345 · 14.7%High 152 · 6.5%

MI therapy vs control

Financial loss from gambling ‐ comparisons at 0 to 3 months post‐treatment Lower scores indicate reduced financial loss from gambling, and thus positive outcomes1 · patients with pathological and problem gambling
1 finding from 1 review

MI therapy vs control

Frequency of gambling ‐ comparisons at 0 to 3 months post‐treatment Lower scores indicate reduced financial loss from gambling, and thus positive outcomes1 · patients with pathological and problem gambling
1 finding from 1 review

LOW DOSE (greater than or equal to 2‐<4 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Adverse effects: 5a. Movement disorders ‐ specific symptoms ‐ EPS: unspecified ‐ versus standard‐lower dose (greater than or equal to 4‐<6 mg/day) · patients with schizophrenia

LOW DOSE (greater than or equal to 2‐<4 mg/day) probably leads to lower adverse effects: 5a. Movement disorders ‐ specific symptoms ‐ EPS:… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Leaving the study early: insufficient response ‐ When compared with standard‐lower dose (greater than or equal to 4‐<6 mg/day) · patients with schizophrenia

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) showed no clear difference in leaving the study early: insufficient response ‐ When compared with… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Global state: 1. No clinically important improvement ‐ CGI‐I ‐ when compared with standard‐lower dose (greater than or equal to 4‐<6 mg/day) · patients with schizophrenia

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) showed no clear difference in global state: 1. No clinically important improvement ‐ CGI‐I ‐ when… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Mental state: No clinically important improvement · patients with schizophrenia

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) showed no clear difference in mental state: 1. No clinically important improvement ‐ PANSS ‐ when… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Adverse effects: 5a. Movement disorders ‐ specific symptoms ‐ EPS: unspecified ‐ versus standard‐lower dose (greater than or equal to 4‐<6 mg/day) · patients with schizophrenia

STANDARD‐HIGHER DOSE (greater than or equal to 6‐<10 mg/day) showed no clear difference in adverse effects: EPS: unspecified ‐ Versus standard‐lower dose… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

HIGH DOSE (greater than or equal to 10 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Leaving the study early: insufficient response ‐ When compared with standard‐lower dose (greater than or equal to 4‐<6 mg/day) · patients with schizophrenia

HIGH DOSE (greater than or equal to 10 mg/day) showed no clear difference in leaving the study early: insufficient response ‐ When compared with… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

HIGH DOSE (greater than or equal to 10 mg/day) vs ANY DOSE ‐ short term

Mental state: 1. No clinically important improvement ‐ as measured by PANSS ‐ when compared with standard‐low dose (greater than or equal to 4‐<6 mg/day) · patients with schizophrenia

HIGH DOSE (greater than or equal to 10 mg/day) showed no clear difference in mental state: 1. No clinically important improvement ‐ PANSS ‐ when… compared with ANY DOSE ‐ short term (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) vs Implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO)

Altered chin or lower lip skin sensation (binary) · Edentulous patients requiring improved denture retention

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) led to lower morbidity: altered sensation of the lower lip and chin compared with implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) vs Implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO)

Dissatisfied with lower denture · Edentulous patients requiring improved denture retention

Preprosthetic surgery for a conventional denture (PPS) showed no clear difference in dissatisfied with lower denture compared with implant retained overdenture (dental implants) (IRO); 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

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

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

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

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

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher wits appraisal compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

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

Mandibular headgear vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) vs no intervention

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

Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review