What do systematic reviews say?

G‐CSF vs placebo

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

G‐CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 64 participants
  Very low

GM-CSF vs placebo

GM‐CSF showed no clear difference in mortality (12 months compared with placebo (low certainty).

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.88 [0.62, 1.26]
  2 studies · 149 participants
  Low

GM-CSF vs placebo

• Granulocyte and granulocyte‐macrophage colony stimulating factors for newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic… 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 149 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes all cause mortality (very low certainty).

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.13 [0.01, 2.32]
  1 study · 13 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Intervention not reported

• Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic… 2015 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 13 participants
  Very low

Naftopidil vs silodosin (alpha‐blocker)

Naftopidil probably leads to lower sexual adverse events compared with silodosin (alpha‐blocker) (moderate certainty).

• Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.15 [0.06, 0.42]
  4 studies · 348 participants
  Moderate

Naftopidil vs silodosin (alpha‐blocker)

• Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 652 participants
  Low

Naftopidil vs silodosin (alpha‐blocker)

• Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 652 participants
  Low

Naftopidil vs silodosin (alpha‐blocker)

Naftopidil showed no clear difference in treatment withdrawals for any reason compared with silodosin (alpha‐blocker) (low certainty).

• Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.8 [0.52, 1.23]
  4 studies · 659 participants
  Low

Naftopidil vs silodosin (alpha‐blocker)

Naftopidil showed no clear difference in cardiovascular adverse events compared with silodosin (alpha‐blocker) (low certainty).

• Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.98 [0.39, 2.44]
  5 studies · 808 participants
  Low

Index pricing vs no index pricing

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Index pricing vs no index pricing

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Index pricing vs no index pricing

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Index pricing vs no index pricing

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Pharmaceutical policies: effects of reference pricing, other pricing, and purchasing policies 2014 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found