Oral Isoniazid (INH) vs no intervention
It is very uncertain whether oral Isoniazid (INH) changes clinical failure clinical observation compared with no intervention (very low certainty).
- RR 1.48 [0.79, 2.78]2 studies · 54 participantsVery low
It is very uncertain whether oral Isoniazid (INH) changes clinical failure clinical observation compared with no intervention (very low certainty).
Oral cyclophosphamide showed no clear difference in complete remission: all renal pathologies compared with prednisone or placebo (low certainty).
Oral cyclophosphamide showed no clear difference in complete remission: FSGS compared with prednisone or placebo (low certainty).
Oral cyclophosphamide showed no clear difference in complete or partial remission compared with prednisone or placebo (low certainty).
Oral cyclophosphamide showed no clear difference in complete or partial remission: FSGS compared with prednisone or placebo (low certainty).
Oral cyclophosphamide showed no clear difference in treatment failure compared with prednisone or placebo (low certainty).
Oral cyclophosphamide showed no clear difference in adverse events: death (all causes) compared with prednisone or placebo (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether oral cyclophosphamide changes adverse events: hypertension with seizures compared with prednisone or placebo (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether partial oral treatment changes all‐cause mortality during hospital stay and all‐cause mortality at… compared with conventional intravenous treatment of endocarditis on the left side… (very low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Partial oral treatment showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with conventional intravenous treatment of endocarditis on the left side… (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether partial oral treatment changes congestive heart failure compared with conventional intravenous treatment of endocarditis on the left side… (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether partial oral treatment changes need for cardiac surgicalinterventions compared with conventional intravenous treatment of endocarditis on the left side… (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether partial oral treatment changes septic embolism compared with conventional intravenous treatment of endocarditis on the left side… (very low certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Oral viscous budesonide showed no clear difference in histological improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) compared with swallowed fluticasone (low certainty).