Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Tear hyperosmolarity · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Findings
What do systematic reviews say?
4,678 questions · 4,859 findings · 283 reviews
No studies found 1,225 · 25.2%GRADE not reported 215 · 4.4%Very low 1,241 · 25.5%Low 1,210 · 24.9%Moderate 776 · 16%High 192 · 4%
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Fluorescein staining Range of scale: 0‐9, where a higher score is worse · people with dry eye
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 20 participantsLow
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Rose Bengal staining Range of scale: 0‐9, where a higher score is worse · people with dry eye
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 20 participantsLow
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Tear film stability · people with dry eye
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 20 participantsLow
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Schirmer’s test Score < 4 mm indicates severe dry eye · people with dry eye
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted1 study · 20 participantsLow
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs artificial tears
Adverse events · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs Normal saline
Participant‐reported symptoms · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
Summary of findings: autologous serum vs Normal saline
Tear hyperosmolarity · people with dry eye
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extractedStudies not reportedNo studies found
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs fusion
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · patients with lumbar stenosis
It is very uncertain whether SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION changes pain Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Pain scores converted to 0 to 100 scale… compared with FUSION (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted4 studies · 380 participantsVery low
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS
Reoperation · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION leads to lower reoperations Number of patients requiring a revision surgery compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Risk ratio 0.25 [0.14, 0.47]3 studies · 326 participantsHigh
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs fusion
Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis
It is very uncertain whether SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION changes disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0… compared with FUSION (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Mean difference 3.263 studies · 335 participantsVery low
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs fusion
Operating time · patients with lumbar stenosis
It is very uncertain whether SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION changes operation time Duration of operation reported in minutes compared with FUSION (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted4 studies · 381 participantsVery low
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs fusion
Amount of blood loss · patients with lumbar stenosis
It is very uncertain whether SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION changes blood loss Amount of perioperative blood loss reported in L compared with FUSION (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted4 studies · 383 participantsVery low
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs fusion
Reoperation · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in reoperations Number of patients requiring a revision surgery compared with FUSION (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Risk ratio 1.25 [0.81, 1.92]5 studies · 443 participantsModerate
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in pain Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Pain scores converted to 0 to 100 scale… compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- no estimate extracted3 studies · 328 participantsModerate
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS
Disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0 to 100 scale to allow for comparison of different disability scales (RMDQ, ODI, JOA) · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in disability Long‐term (≥ 12 months) Disability scores converted to 0… compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Mean difference 1.253 studies · 327 participantsLow
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS
Operating time · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION may leads to higher operation time Duration of operation reported in minutes compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Mean difference 39.11 [19.43, 58.78]3 studies · 340 participantsLow
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION vs INTERSPINOUS SPACERS
Total operative and perioperative blood loss (mL) ( · patients with lumbar stenosis
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR DECOMPRESSION showed no clear difference in blood loss Amount of perioperative blood loss reported in mL compared with INTERSPINOUS SPACERS (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Mean difference 1441 study · 81 participantsLow
Salbutamol vs placebo
Mortality within the trial period · preterm infants (< 37 weeks GA) at risk of chronic lung disease
Summary of findings table ‐ Salbutamol showed no clear difference in mortality within the trial period compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Inhaled bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.08 [0.5, 2.31]1 study · 173 participantsLow
Salbutamol vs placebo
Chronic lung disease · preterm infants (< 37 weeks GA) at risk of chronic lung disease
Summary of findings table ‐ Salbutamol showed no clear difference in chronic lung disease at 28 days compared with placebo (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
- Inhaled bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants 2024 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyRR 1.03 [0.78, 1.37]1 study · 173 participantsLow