Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,938 questions · 1,994 findings · 246 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 490 · 24.6%GRADE not reported 71 · 3.6%Very low 669 · 33.6%Low 446 · 22.4%Moderate 264 · 13.2%High 54 · 2.7%

V‐NOTES vs laparoscopic hysterectomy

Intra‐operative visceral injury (dichotomous) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

V‐NOTES showed no clear difference in intra‐operative visceral injury (dichotomous) compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 3.09 [0.12, 78.41]
2 studies · 96 participants
Low

V‐NOTES vs laparoscopic hysterectomy

Major short‐term complications (dichotomous) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Vaginal hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy

Intra‐operative visceral injury (dichotomous) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

Vaginal hysterectomy showed no clear difference in intra‐operative visceral injury (dichotomous) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.62 [0.52, 4.99]
7 studies · 697 participants
Low

Vaginal hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy

Major short‐term complications (dichotomous) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

Vaginal hysterectomy showed no clear difference in major short‐term complications (dichotomous) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 3.14 [0.48, 20.55]
3 studies · 216 participants
Low

Laparoscopic hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy

Return to normal activities (days) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 618 participants
Low

Laparoscopic hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy

Long‐term outcomes · patients with benign gynaecological disease

It is very uncertain whether laparoscopic hysterectomy changes long‐term outcomes compared with abdominal hysterectomy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.65 [0.32, 1.3]
1 study · 166 participants
Very low

Laparoscopic hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy

Long‐term complications (dichotomous) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

Laparoscopic hysterectomy showed no clear difference in long‐term complications (dichotomous) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.94 [0.49, 1.82]
3 studies · 343 participants
Low

Laparoscopic hysterectomy vs abdominal hysterectomy

Intra‐operative visceral injury (dichotomous) · patients with benign gynaecological disease

Laparoscopic hysterectomy showed no clear difference in intra‐operative visceral injury(dichotomous) compared with abdominal hysterectomy (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.68 [0.88, 3.22]
15 studies · 2298 participants
Low

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Perioperative mortality · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) showed no clear difference in perioperative mortality (within 1 month after operation) compared with no RIPC (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.41 [0.59, 3.4]
10 studies · 965 participants
Moderate

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Myocardial infarction (0 to 30 days) · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction (within 1 month after operation) compared with no RIPC (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.82 [0.49, 1.4]
11 studies · 1001 participants
Moderate

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Renal impairment (within 1 month after operation) · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) showed no clear difference in renal impairment (within 1 month after operation) compared with no RIPC (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.07 [0.62, 1.86]
12 studies · 1054 participants
Moderate

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Stroke · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) showed no clear difference in stroke (within 1 month after operation) compared with no RIPC (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.15]
4 studies · 392 participants
Moderate

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Length of hospital stay · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 569 participants
Moderate

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Limb loss (within 1 month after operation) · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) showed no clear difference in limb loss (within 1 month after operation) compared with no RIPC (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.74 [0.05, 10.61]
3 studies · 322 participants
Low

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) vs no RIPC

Operating time or total anaesthetic time · people undergoing elective major vascular surgery

1 finding from 1 review

Remote ischaemic preconditioning versus no remote ischaemic preconditioning for vascular and endovascular surgical… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
10 studies · 803 participants
Moderate

Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access

Short‐term mortality (30‐day or in‐hospital) · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in short‐term mortality (30‐day or in‐hospital) compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.5 [0.06, 36.18]
2 studies · 181 participants
Low

Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access

Failure of aneurysm exclusion ( · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in failure of aneurysm exclusion( compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.17 [0.01, 4.02]
1 study · 151 participants
Moderate

Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access

Wound infection · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in wound infection (30‐day or in‐hospital) compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.18 [0.01, 3.59]
3 studies · 318 participants
Moderate

Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access

Major complications · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in major complications (30‐day or in‐hospital) compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.21 [0.61, 2.41]
3 studies · 318 participants
Moderate

Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access

Medium‐ to long‐term complications( · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair

Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in medium‐ to long‐term complications( compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular… 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.82 [0.25, 2.65]
1 study · 135 participants
Moderate