evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,760 questions · 8,065 findings · 1,036 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,686 · 20.9%GRADE not reported 675 · 8.4%Very low 1,953 · 24.2%Low 2,048 · 25.4%Moderate 1,296 · 16.1%High 407 · 5%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy vs no treatment

Canine expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy showed no clear difference in canine expansion compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    12 months after start of treatment
    U-bow activator 3.6 mm vs untreated 1 mm; P<0.001 (no SD reported); significant in favour of treatment
    1 study · 66 participants
    GRADE not reported

Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy vs no treatment

Molar expansion · Children and adults with a posterior crossbite, without a Class III skeletal relationship, cleft lip or palate (or both), or other…

Fixed bonded Hyrax appliance followed by U-bow activator therapy showed no clear difference in molar expansion compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    12 months after start of treatment
    U-bow activator 5.1 mm vs untreated 0.8 mm; P<0.001 (no SD reported); significant in favour of treatment
    1 study · 66 participants
    GRADE not reported

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance vs chemotherapy alone

Overall survival (OS) · platinum‐sensitive recurrent EOC

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance showed no clear difference in overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance vs chemotherapy alone

Progression‐free survival · newly‐diagnosed EOC

It is very uncertain whether chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab changes progression‐free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance vs chemotherapy alone

Progression‐free survival · platinum‐sensitive recurrent EOC

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance probably leads to lower progression‐free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance vs chemotherapy alone

Adverse events (grade ≥ 3) · platinum‐sensitive recurrent EOC

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance leads to higher any adverse event (grade ≥3) compared with chemotherapy alone (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance vs chemotherapy alone

Adverse events (grade ≥ 3) · newly‐diagnosed EOC

Chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab probably leads to higher any adverse event grade ≥ 3 compared with chemotherapy alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chemotherapy with TKI (peptide‐Fc fusion protein) followed by TKI maintenance vs chemotherapy alone

Overall survival (OS) · newly‐diagnosed EOC

Chemotherapy with TKI (peptide‐Fc fusion protein) followed by TKI… showed no clear difference in overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy alone (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review