Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,667 questions · 21,760 findings · 2,177 reviews

No studies found 4,173 · 19.2%GRADE not reported 2,300 · 10.6%Very low 5,276 · 24.2%Low 5,764 · 26.5%Moderate 3,298 · 15.2%High 949 · 4.4%

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

Intervention not reported

Anxiety and depression in the relatives HADS (0 to 42; subscale score > 10 (range, 0 to 21) = presence of anxiety or depression) measured at 3 months and > 3 months · relatives, patients, and healthcare professionals during resucitation
1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Grief in the relatives ICG (0 to 95; > 25 = presence of complicated grief) measured at 12 months TRIG (21 to 105; lower scores indicate higher levels of grief) measured at 3 and 9 months · relatives, patients, and healthcare professionals during resucitation
1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens vs GnRH antagonists

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy · assisted reproduction technology cycles
3 findings from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens vs GnRH antagonists

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy sensitivity analysis ‐ PCOS (high‐responders) ‐ own oocytes ‐ early phase stimulation protocol ‐ frozen embryo transfer (micronised progesterone 100 mg/day versus GnRH antagonists) · assisted reproduction technology cycles

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens showed no clear difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy sensitivity analysis ‐ PCOS… compared with gnRH antagonists; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens vs GnRH antagonists

Clinical pregnancy · assisted reproduction technology cycles

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy ‐ Poor‐responders (MPA 10 mg versus GnRH… compared with gnRH antagonists (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens vs GnRH agonist

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy · assisted reproduction technology cycles

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestagen showed no clear difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy compared with gnRH agonist (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens vs Progestogen 2

Clinical pregnancy · assisted reproduction technology cycles

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogen 1 showed no clear difference in clinical pregnancy ‐ Normo‐responders (MPA 10 mg versus… compared with progestogen 2 (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens vs GnRH antagonists

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy ‐ Poor‐responders (MPA 10 mg versus GnRH antagonists) ‐ Own oocytes ‐ Early phase stimulation protocol · assisted reproduction technology cycles

Summary of findings table ‐ Progestogens showed no clear difference in live birth or ongoing pregnancy ‐ Poor‐responders (MPA 10 mg versus… compared with gnRH antagonists; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs PI

Proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by… compared with PI (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous catheters (CVC) removed in the trial as deemed by the author as the source of infection (premature central line removal) · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous… compared with CHG‐A (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs PI

Central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed using absolute rates of infants · neonates that require central line

It is very uncertain whether CHG‐IPA changes central line‐associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed… compared with PI (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs PI

Premature central line removal, defined as number of central venous catheters (CVC) removed in the trial as deemed by the author as the source of infection (premature central line removal) · neonates that require central line

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in proven catheter‐related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) expressed by… compared with CHG‐A (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CHG‐IPA vs CHG‐A

Central‐line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed by the authors of the individual trial as absolute rates · neonates that require central line

CHG‐IPA showed no clear difference in central‐line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) expressed by… compared with CHG‐A (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review