What do systematic reviews say?

Reflexology vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 71 participants
  Very low

Reflexology vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 71 participants
  Very low

Reflexology vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 71 participants
  Very low

TENS vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 90 participants
  Very low

Ai Chi Exercises vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 73 participants
  Very low

Ai Chi Exercises vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 73 participants
  Very low

Ai Chi Exercises vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 73 participants
  Very low

Ai Chi Exercises vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 73 participants
  Very low

tDCS vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 35 participants
  Very low

tDCS vs sham

• Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 16 participants
  Very low

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -0.53 [-1.14, 0.08]
  4 studies · 100 participants
  Low

EMP + CAF vs CAF

EMP + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with CAF (low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD 0.22 [-0.02, 0.45]
  3 studies · 136 participants
  Low
• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short and medium term (6 to 24 months)
  MD 0.35 [0.09, 0.61]
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  McGuire 2012: patient-reported discomfort statistically significantly higher for SCTG than EMP + CAF, only at 1 month postoperatively
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

ADMG + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

ADMG + CAF showed no clear difference in sites with complete root coverage compared with SCTG + CAF (low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  OR 0.43 [0.13, 1.37]
  2 studies · 50 participants
  Low

EMP + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes keratinized tissue change compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -1.06 [-1.36, -0.76]
  2 studies · 62 participants
  Very low

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF led to lower keratinized tissue width change compared with SCTG + CAF; GRADE not reported.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  MD -2.38 [-2.84, -1.92]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Wang 2001: participants reported greater overall satisfaction with GTR rm than SCTG (reduced treatment time, no need for a second surgical site)
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Aesthetic condition change was not reported for this comparison
  0 studies
  No studies found

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Rosetti 2013: patient satisfaction survey indicated all patients satisfied with aesthetic results of both procedures at 18 months; no significant differences between 18- and 30-month assessments
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

GTR rm + CAF vs GTR nrm + CAF

• Root coverage procedures for treating localised and multiple recession‐type defects 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (6 to 12 months)
  Roccuzzo 1996: membrane exposure reported between the first and second weeks of healing
  1 study
  GRADE not reported