What do systematic reviews say?

Screening hysteroscopy vs no hysteroscopy

It is very uncertain whether screening hysteroscopy changes adverse events compared with no hysteroscopy (very low certainty).

• Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  Peto OR 7.47 [0.15, 376.42]
  4 studies · 1872 participants
  Very low

Screening hysteroscopy vs no hysteroscopy

Screening hysteroscopy may leads to higher clinical pregnancy compared with no hysteroscopy (low certainty).

• Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.32 [1.2, 1.45]
  10 studies · 3750 participants
  Low

Screening hysteroscopy vs no hysteroscopy

Screening hysteroscopy showed no clear difference in miscarriage compared with no hysteroscopy (low certainty).

• Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.01 [0.67, 1.5]
  3 studies · 1669 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention probably leads to higher invitation versus control: uptake of screening (moderate certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.71 [1.49, 1.96]
  24 studies · 141391 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes GP invitation letter versus invitation letter from other authority… (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.69 [0.75, 3.82]
  2 studies · 86 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher personal invitation versus invitation letter: uptake of screening (low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.32 [1.11, 1.56]
  5 studies · 27663 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

The intervention probably leads to higher letter with fixed appointment versus letter with open invitation to… (moderate certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.61 [1.48, 1.75]
  5 studies · 5742 participants
  Moderate

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes counselling versus control: uptake of screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.23 [1.04, 1.45]
  2 studies · 393 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes counselling versus other: uptake of screening (very low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.13 [0.9, 1.41]
  1 study · 208 participants
  Very low

Intervention not reported

The intervention may leads to higher education versus control: uptake of screening (low certainty).

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.35 [1.18, 1.54]
  13 studies · 63415 participants
  Low

Intervention not reported

• Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2500 participants
  Very low

Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  56 studies · 329164 participants
  Low

Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Stepped quality improvement intervention vs the intervention alone

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  10 studies · 23715 participants
  Moderate

Stepped quality improvement intervention vs the intervention alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

Personalised risk communication may leads to higher uptake of screening test ‐ Numerical and categorised risk combined… compared with general risk information (low certainty).

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.15 [1.02, 1.29]
  12 studies · 6442 participants
  Low

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 588 participants
  Moderate

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 260 participants
  Low

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 838 participants
  High

Personalised risk communication vs general risk information

Personalised risk communication leads to higher knowledge regarding screening test/condition concerned ‐ calculated… compared with general risk information (high certainty).

• Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 2.6 [1.27, 5.34]
  3 studies · 1413 participants
  High