What do systematic reviews say?

Visual examination (VE) 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 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

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): sensitivity 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.15), 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.63), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65) across the 4 studies. Prevalence 0.6% to 63.6%.…
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) 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 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 studies with low prevalence (<=10%) sensitivity ranged from 0.50 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

Any pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 48 participants
  Low

Any pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Any pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Any pessary may leads to higher number of women with adverse events compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (low certainty).

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 75.25 [4.7, 1205.45]
  1 study · 97 participants
  Low

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Pessary plus PFMT probably leads to higher perceived improvement of prolapse symptoms compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone (moderate certainty).

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.15 [1.58, 2.94]
  1 study · 260 participants
  Moderate

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 260 participants
  Moderate

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Pessary plus PFMT showed no clear difference in number of women with adverse events ‐ abnormal vaginal bleeding compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone (low certainty).

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.18 [0.69, 6.91]
  1 study · 260 participants
  Low

PFMT added to continence pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

Pessary plus PFMT showed no clear difference in number of women with adverse events ‐ de novo voiding difficulty compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone (low certainty).

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.32 [0.54, 3.19]
  1 study · 189 participants
  Low

Any pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Any pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 117 participants
  Low

Any pessary vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT)

• Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 116 participants
  Low

Resilience interventions vs controls

• Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  9 studies · 561 participants
  Very low

Resilience interventions vs controls

• Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  7 studies · 362 participants
  Very low

Resilience interventions vs controls

• Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  6 studies · 332 participants
  Very low

Resilience interventions vs controls

• Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  7 studies · 420 participants
  Very low