Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,245 questions · 1,274 findings · 321 reviews

No studies found 247 · 19.4%GRADE not reported 195 · 15.3%Very low 372 · 29.2%Low 282 · 22.1%Moderate 141 · 11.1%High 37 · 2.9%

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Position of the incisors (upper incisor inclination) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    The author reported that data (1.NA, 1-NA, 1-PP, 1.NB, 1-NB, 1-GoMe) showed a statistically significant difference. There was palatal inclination of the upper incisors in the intervention group that contributed to…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite)

Extraction of tooth (due to decay) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam)

Presence of clinical symptoms (pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam)

Further restoration required (repair, restoration, placement of crown/inlay, root filling) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training vs no treatment

Side effects / tolerability · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Failure to correct the anterior open bite (open bite not closed) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull… led to lower failure to correct the anterior open bite (open bite not closed) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite)

Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary analysis: less vs more frequent

Catheter‐related BSI as defined using criteria specified by Maki 2006; Mermel 2009; and O'Grady 2002 · patients with intravenous administration set replacement

Primary analysis: less showed no clear difference in catheter‐related BSI as defined using criteria specified by Maki… compared with more frequent (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary analysis: less vs more frequent

Infusate‐related BSI as defined using criteria specified by O'Grady 2002 · patients with intravenous administration set replacement

Primary analysis: less showed no clear difference in infusate‐related BSI as defined using criteria specified by O'Grady… compared with more frequent (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary analysis: less vs more frequent

Infusate colonization any positive quantitative culture of infusate · patients with intravenous administration set replacement

Primary analysis: less showed no clear difference in infusate colonization any positive quantitative culture of infusate compared with more frequent (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary analysis: less vs more frequent

Catheter colonization any positive semiquantitative or quantitative culture from the distal catheter segment · patients with intravenous administration set replacement

Primary analysis: less showed no clear difference in catheter colonization any positive semiquantitative or quantitative… compared with more frequent (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary analysis: less vs more frequent

All‐cause BSI any positive blood culture drawn from a peripheral vein taken whilst the IVD is in situ, or within 48 hours of removal (O'Grady 2002) · patients with intravenous administration set replacement

Primary analysis: less showed no clear difference in all‐cause BSI any positive blood culture drawn from a peripheral… compared with more frequent (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

HAART regimen + topical treatment vs HAART alone

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Duration to heal oral ulcerations after initiation of treatment · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Duration to heal oral ulcerations after initiation of treatment · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

HAART regimen + topical treatment vs HAART alone

Healing of ulceration · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Incidence and recurrence after healing of ulcers · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found