Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

122 questions · 122 findings · 10 reviews · Headline outcomes only

No studies found 44 · 36.1%GRADE not reported 4 · 3.3%Very low 42 · 34.4%Low 22 · 18%Moderate 9 · 7.4%High 1 · 0.8%

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs no intervention

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · patients with Chronic CGH

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance… showed no clear difference in pain Intensity: VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst pain ( compared with NO INTERVENTION (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs no intervention

Function: NPNPQ 0% no disability to 100% maximum disability ( · patients with Chronic CGH

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance… showed no clear difference in function: NPNPQ 0% no disability to 100% maximum disability ( compared with NO INTERVENTION (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization vs no intervention

Global Perceived Effect · patients with Chronic CGH

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance… showed no clear difference in global Perceived Effect: VAS 0 to 100 ( compared with NO INTERVENTION (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization + Manual Therapy vs manual therapy

Pain intensity VAS (0 to 100; 0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain) · patients with Chronic CGH

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance… showed no clear difference in pain Intensity: 6 weeks treatment VAS 0 no pain to 10 worst pain ( compared with manual Therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization + Manual Therapy vs manual therapy

Function: NPNPQ 0% no disability to 100% maximum disability ( · patients with Chronic CGH

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance… showed no clear difference in function: NPNPQ 0% no disability to 100% maximum disability ( compared with manual Therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance Training + Craniocervical Pressure Biofeedback + Dynamic Cervical Stabilization + Manual Therapy vs manual therapy

Global Perceived Effect · patients with Chronic CGH

Chronic CGH: Cervical/Scapulothoracic Strengthening with Endurance… showed no clear difference in global Perceived Effect: VAS 0 to 100 ( compared with manual Therapy (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy

Resolution of daytime urinary incontinence · children aged 5 to 16 years with daytime urinary incontinence

It is very uncertain whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard… changes resolution of daytime urinary incontinence compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy

Objective measurement of volume of incontinent episodes · children aged 5 to 16 years with daytime urinary incontinence

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy

Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) · children aged 5 to 16 years with daytime urinary incontinence

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and standard urotherapy vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy

Adverse effects · children aged 5 to 16 years with daytime urinary incontinence

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical stimulation vs pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback

Participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence · Adults with overactive bladder (OAB)

Electrical stimulation showed no clear difference in participants with improvement in urgency urinary incontinence compared with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) plus biofeedback (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review