What do systematic reviews say?

Occlusal splint vs Physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training, laser, TENS, manual therapy)

Occlusal splint showed no clear difference in range of mandibular motion compared with physical therapy (ultrasound, exercise, sensorimotor training,…; GRADE not reported.

• Occlusal interventions for managing temporomandibular disorders 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (3 months) · Disc displacement with reduction (DDwR)
  MD -0.33 [-3.31, 2.65]
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

Telerehabilitation vs self‐training

• Telerehabilitation for people with low vision 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 57 participants
  Very low

Telerehabilitation vs self‐training

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Telerehabilitation for people with low vision 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Telerehabilitation vs self‐training

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Telerehabilitation for people with low vision 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Telerehabilitation vs self‐training

It is very uncertain whether telerehabilitation changes technical difficulties with the intervention at 6 months compared with self‐training (very low certainty).

• Telerehabilitation for people with low vision 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 5.17 [0.26, 103.18]
  1 study · 57 participants
  Very low

Telerehabilitation vs self‐training

It is very uncertain whether telerehabilitation changes device abandonment rate at 6 months compared with self‐training (very low certainty).

• Telerehabilitation for people with low vision 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.52 [0.14, 1.87]
  1 study · 57 participants
  Very low

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Oestrogen therapy alone vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Oestrogen therapy for treating pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  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 light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) 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 light-based detection.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) 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
  No eligible study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) 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 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low