What do systematic reviews say?

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 242 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 179 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 190 participants
  Low

Brief intervention vs assessment only

• Brief school‐based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance‐using adolescents 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 338 participants
  Low

Repositioning of ankylosed teeth after osteotomy followed or not by distraction osteogenesis, or after luxation vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Transplantation of other teeth after extraction of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in vaginal birth compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.2]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in caesarean delivery compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.82 [0.5, 1.35]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in neonatal admission to NICU compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.67 [0.41, 6.83]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score probably leads to lower need of misoprostol for cervical ripening compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.53 [0.42, 0.67]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in meconium staining of amniotic fluid compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.75 [0.37, 1.51]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in apgar score at 5 minutes less than 7 compared with transvaginal ultrasound (moderate certainty).

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.62 [0.08, 4.99]
  2 studies · 234 participants
  Moderate

Bishop score vs transvaginal ultrasound

Bishop score showed no clear difference in fetal heart rate abnormality in labour compared with transvaginal ultrasound; GRADE not reported.

• Methods for assessing pre‐induction cervical ripening 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1 [0.21, 4.8]
  1 study · 154 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fixed prostheses cemented to prepared teeth after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Implant-supported crowns after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Oral cytology (e.g. OralCDx brush biopsy, CytID) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral cytology (e.g. brush biopsy) was added to the list of eligible index tests in this update; no eligible studies evaluated it (evidence gap).
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) across the 3 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.96), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) across the 3 studies. Prevalence 12.2% to 30.9%. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Specificity 0.91 [0.90, 0.91]
  1 study · 4080 participants
  Moderate
• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Specificity 0.92 [0.91, 0.93]
  1 study · 3895 participants
  Moderate