What do systematic reviews say?

Intervention not reported

• Levetiracetam for neuropathic pain in adults 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  Very low

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

The pooled survival rate was 41% at 2 years.

• Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes

  2 years · School · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years
  Survival percentage 41 [18, 67]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported
• Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes

  1 year · School · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year
  Survival percentage 86 [59, 98]
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes

  5 years · School · multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years
  Survival percentage 77 [56, 92]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

The pooled survival rate was 62% at 2 years.

• Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes

  2 years · School or clinic · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years
  Survival percentage 62 [51, 73]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes

  1 year · School or clinic · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year
  Survival percentage 71 [60, 80]
  8 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes

  3 years · School or clinic · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years
  Survival percentage 31 [2, 77]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Single‐dose vs multiple dose antibiotic

Single dose probably leads to higher bacteriuria compared with multiple dose antibiotic (moderate certainty).

• Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.98 [1.18, 3.33]
  4 studies · 944 participants
  Moderate

Single‐dose vs multiple dose antibiotic

Single dose showed no clear difference in fever compared with multiple dose antibiotic (low certainty).

• Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.84 [0.99, 8.16]
  4 studies · 652 participants
  Low

Single‐dose vs multiple dose antibiotic

Single dose showed no clear difference in UTI compared with multiple dose antibiotic (moderate certainty).

• Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.4 [0.73, 2.68]
  5 studies · 1312 participants
  Moderate

Single‐dose vs multiple dose antibiotic

Single dose showed no clear difference in hospitalization compared with multiple dose antibiotic (low certainty).

• Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy 2011 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 3.1 [0.64, 15.06]
  3 studies · 441 participants
  Low

Ultrasonic instrumentation used alone (any ultrasonic device designed specifically for root canal treatment and capable of the active or passive removal of dentine within the root canal) vs Hand instrumentation used alone (files and reamers used manually)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Hand instrumentation in conjunction with (as an adjunct to) an ultrasonic device designed specifically for root canal treatment and capable of the active or passive removal of dentine within the root canal vs Hand instrumentation used alone (files and reamers used manually)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Hand and ultrasonic instrumentation for orthograde root canal treatment of permanent teeth 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible randomised controlled trials were identified.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to lower pegylated interferon beta‐1a (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 1512… (low certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.68 [0.56, 0.82]
  1 study · 1512 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to lower mitoxantrone (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 51 participants) (low certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.4 [0.21, 0.74]
  1 study · 51 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention leads to lower natalizumab (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 942 participants) (high certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.52 [0.43, 0.63]
  1 study · 942 participants
  High

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to lower teriflunomide (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 1169 participants) (low certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.66 [0.55, 0.78]
  1 study · 1169 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The intervention leads to lower alemtuzumab No direct evidence (high certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.57 [0.47, 0.68]
  Studies not reported
  High

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes azathioprine (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 59 participants) (very low certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.77 [0.51, 1.18]
  1 study · 59 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention leads to lower cladribine (Direct evidence; 1 RCT; 1326 participants) (high certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.53 [0.44, 0.64]
  1 study · 1326 participants
  High

Intervention not reported

The intervention probably leads to lower dimethylfumarate (Direct evidence; 2 RCTs; 2307 participants) (moderate certainty).

• Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta‐analysis 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.62 [0.55, 0.7]
  2 studies · 2307 participants
  Moderate