Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,536 questions · 2,637 findings · 315 reviews

No studies found 608 · 23.1%GRADE not reported 488 · 18.5%Very low 688 · 26.1%Low 540 · 20.5%Moderate 249 · 9.4%High 64 · 2.4%

Intervention not reported

Satisfaction with the information provided (Single and multi‐component intervention) · People with a health condition or nominally 'well' considering real clinical trial participation (across a range of topic areas)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Anxiety, or other psychological distress (Single and multi‐component intervention) · People with a health condition or nominally 'well' considering real clinical trial participation (across a range of topic areas)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Satisfaction with the decision‐making process (multi‐component intervention) [questionnaire, assessed immediately post‐intervention] · People with a health condition or nominally 'well' considering real clinical trial participation (across a range of topic areas)
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Recurrent pericarditis Chest pain + (ECG changes +/‐ echocardiographic changes +/‐ raised inflammatory markers) Intervention: colchicine with NSAID; Comparison: NSAID alone

The intervention probably leads to lower recurrent pericarditis Chest pain + (ECG changes +/‐… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Acute pericarditis Chest pain + (ECG changes +/‐ echocardiographic changes +/‐ raised inflammatory markers) Intervention: colchicine with NSAID; Comparison: NSAID alone

The intervention probably leads to lower acute pericarditis Chest pain + (ECG changes +/‐ echocardiographic… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Non‐fatal macrovascular outcomes 1. Composite a. Intervention vs metformin [1a. 6 months to 4 years] b. Intervention vs thiazolidinediones [1b. 52 weeks to 4 years] c. Intervention vs meglitinide [1c. 12 months to 15 months]2. Non‐fatal myocardial... · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The intervention may leads to lower non‐fatal macrovascular outcomes 1. Composite a. Intervention vs… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Cancer a. Intervention vs thiazolidinediones [52 weeks to 4 years] b. Intervention vs insulin [6 years to 10 years] · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The intervention showed no clear difference in cancer a. Intervention vs thiazolidinediones [52 weeks to 4 years]… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Health‐related quality of life a. Intervention vs thiazolidinediones [12 months] b. Intervention vs insulin [6 years] c. Intervention vs alpha‐glucosidase inhibitors [12 months] · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Adverse events 1. All adverse events 2. Drop‐outs due to adverse events Interventions vs thiazolidinediones [1. 6 months to 12 months] [2. 24 weeks to 52 weeks] · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The intervention may leads to lower adverse events 1. All adverse events 2. Drop‐outs due to adverse… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

All‐cause mortality a. Intervention vs metformin [a. 24 weeks to 4 years] b. Intervention vs thiazolidinediones [b. 24 weeks to 4 years] c. Intervention vs insulin [c. 9 months to 10 years] d. Intervention vs incretin‐based control [d. 52 weeks to... · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The intervention showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality a. Intervention vs metformin [a. 24 weeks to 4… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Cardiovascular mortality a. Intervention vs metformin [a. 24 weeks to 4 years] b. Intervention vs thiazolidinediones [b. 24 weeks to 4 years] c. Intervention vs insulin [c. 9 months to 10 years] d. Intervention vs meglitinide [d. 12 months to 17 m... · participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The intervention showed no clear difference in cardiovascular mortality a. Intervention vs metformin [a. 24 weeks… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control

Marginal bone level change · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3…
1 finding from 1 review

Intralesional triamcinolone vs Intralesional triamcinolone plus salvianolic acid B

Maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)

It is very uncertain whether intralesional triamcinolone changes maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) compared with intralesional triamcinolone plus salvianolic acid B (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intralesional triamcinolone vs Intralesional triamcinolone plus salvianolic acid B

Burning sensation (VAS 0-100) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)

It is very uncertain whether intralesional triamcinolone changes burning sensation (VAS 0-100) compared with intralesional triamcinolone plus salvianolic acid B (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Intralesional betamethasone vs intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide

Clinical resolution · People with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed oral lichen planus (OLP); not concurrently receiving other OLP treatment

Intralesional betamethasone may leads to higher clinical resolution compared with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intralesional betamethasone vs intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide

Clinical score (14 days) · People with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed oral lichen planus (OLP); not concurrently receiving other OLP treatment

It is very uncertain whether intralesional betamethasone changes clinical score (14 days) compared with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intralesional betamethasone vs intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide

Pain (mean score) · People with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed oral lichen planus (OLP); not concurrently receiving other OLP treatment

Intralesional betamethasone showed no clear difference in pain (mean score) compared with intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review