Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,092 questions · 3,199 findings · 339 reviews · Headline outcomes only

No studies found 714 · 22.3%GRADE not reported 181 · 5.7%Very low 695 · 21.7%Low 908 · 28.4%Moderate 568 · 17.8%High 133 · 4.2%

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) vs promethazine

Proportion of children with inadequate level of sedation (Ramsay score below 4) · children undergoing neurodiagnostic procedures

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) may leads to lower proportion of children with inadequate level of sedation (Ramsay… compared with promethazine oral (1 mg/kg) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) vs promethazine

Proportion of children who had sedation failure or inadequate level of sedation · children undergoing neurodiagnostic procedures

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) probably leads to lower proportion of children who had sedation failure or inadequate level… compared with promethazine oral (1 mg/kg) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) vs promethazine

Number of children with clinical adverse event: behavioural change · children undergoing neurodiagnostic procedures

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) showed no clear difference in number of children with clinical adverse event: behavioural change compared with promethazine oral (1 mg/kg) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) vs promethazine

Number of children with clinical adverse event: nausea or vomiting · children undergoing neurodiagnostic procedures

Chloral hydrate oral (70 mg/kg) showed no clear difference in number of children with clinical adverse event: vomiting or nausea compared with promethazine oral (1 mg/kg) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chloral hydrate oral (50 mg/kg) vs clonidine oral (4 μg/kg)

Number of children with clinical adverse event: drowsiness · children undergoing neurodiagnostic procedures

Chloral hydrate oral (50 mg/kg) probably leads to lower number of children with clinical adverse event: drowsiness compared with clonidine oral (4 μg/kg) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chloral hydrate oral (50 mg/kg) vs clonidine oral (4 μg/kg)

Number of children with clinical adverse event: vertigo · children undergoing neurodiagnostic procedures

Chloral hydrate oral (50 mg/kg) showed no clear difference in number of children with clinical adverse event: vertigo compared with clonidine oral (4 μg/kg) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly

Vaginal birth within 24 hours · women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly changes vaginal birth within 24 hours compared with oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly

Caesarean section · women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly changes caesarean section compared with oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly

Oxytocin augmentation · women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly changes oxytocin augmentation compared with oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly vs oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly

Uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes · women in the third trimester for induction of labour with intact membranes

It is very uncertain whether oral misoprostol one‐ to two‐hourly changes uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes compared with oral misoprostol four‐ to six‐hourly (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review