Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

339 questions · 355 findings · 25 reviews

No studies found 134 · 37.7%GRADE not reported 38 · 10.7%Very low 87 · 24.5%Low 66 · 18.6%Moderate 27 · 7.6%High 3 · 0.8%

Summary of findings table ‐ 2 site (4‐8 o?clock) paracervical block vs 4 site (2‐4‐8‐10 o?clock) paracervical block

Pain with aspiration – local anaesthetica,b,d,e · people requesting a surgical abortion at less than 11 weeks' gestation (Renner 2016) and seven to 12 weeks' gestation (Glantz 2001)
1 finding from 1 review

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) vs placebo or control

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) probably leads to lower pain intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) compared with control (placebo or no treatment) (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) vs placebo or control

Quality of life or participant satisfaction · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
1 finding from 1 review

Analgesic (any: NSAID, paracetamol, local anaesthetic or opioid) vs placebo or control

Rescue analgesia · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement) · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia
1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Patient satisfaction: measured by questionnaires · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Patient perception: pain · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) showed no clear difference in pain perception during the intervention (pooled) compared with traditional local anaesthetic; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Successful LA/painless treatment · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Adverse effects · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Acceptance of LA · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

Completion of dental treatment · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

3% mepivacaine plain vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

Success of local anaesthesia (soft tissue, self-reported; 100% success in all studies) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…
1 finding from 1 review
  • '100% success' (lidocaine 1:100,000 vs 3% mepivacaine plain): infraorbital block - Berberich 2009 40/40 vs 40/40; IANB - Cohen 1993 27/27 vs 34/34, McLean 1993 30/30 vs 30/30. Both 100% successful.
    3 studies · 121 participants
    GRADE not reported

4% prilocaine plain vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

Success of local anaesthesia (pulpal, electric pulp tester; healthy pulps) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…

4% prilocaine plain showed no clear difference in success of local anaesthesia (pulpal, electric pulp tester; healthy… compared with 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review