Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,536 questions · 2,637 findings · 315 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 608 · 23.1%GRADE not reported 488 · 18.5%Very low 688 · 26.1%Low 540 · 20.5%Moderate 249 · 9.4%High 64 · 2.4%

Beclometasone dipropionate (systemic corticosteroid) vs Placebo or no treatment

Outcome not reported · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
Table 1: 'Studies of these corticosteroids were not found or included in the review but are included here for completeness.' No trial of beclometasone dipropionate for RAS was identified.
0 studies
No studies found

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferoxamine

Adherence to iron chelation therapy (%, SD)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 612 participants
Very low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferasirox (DFX)

Adherence to iron chelation therapy (%, SD)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 390 participants
Low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferasirox (DFX)

SAE (chelation‐related) (n/N)

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
1.54 [0.44, 5.39]
1 study · 390 participants
Very low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferasirox (DFX)

SAEs

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) changes total SAEs compared with deferasirox (DFX) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.95 [0.46, 1.96]
1 study · 390 participants
Very low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferasirox (DFX)

All‐cause mortality (n/N)

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality (n/N) compared with deferasirox (DFX) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RD 0
1 study · 390 participants
Low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferasirox (DFX)

Sustained adherence

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferasirox (DFX)

QoL

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferoxamine

SAEs

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Comparison 1 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) changes total reported SAEs (from therapy, disease, non‐adherence) compared with deferoxamine (DFO) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.43 [0.83, 2.46]
1 study · 228 participants
Very low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferoxamine

All‐cause mortality

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Comparison 1 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) changes all‐cause mortality compared with deferoxamine (DFO) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.47 [0.18, 1.21]
3 studies · 376 participants
Very low

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferoxamine

Sustained adherence

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Summary of findings: Comparison 3 ‐ deferiprone (DFP) vs deferoxamine

QoL

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for improving adherence to iron chelation therapy in people with sickle cell disease or thalassaemia 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 1 participants
Very low

One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) vs Two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement)

Implant failure · Patients with insufficient bone below the maxillary sinus requiring dental implants

One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year after loading (before loading)
OR 3.48 [0.34, 35.61]
1 study · 58 participants
GRADE not reported

One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) vs Two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement)

Prosthesis failure · Patients with insufficient bone below the maxillary sinus requiring dental implants

One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year after loading
OR 0.35 [0.01, 6.83]
1 study · 58 participants
GRADE not reported

One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) vs Two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement)

Complications · Patients with insufficient bone below the maxillary sinus requiring dental implants

One-stage augmentation (implants placed simultaneously) showed no clear difference in complications compared with two-stage augmentation (delayed implant placement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year after loading
OR 2.23 [0.19, 26.06]
1 study · 58 participants
GRADE not reported

Triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream with occlusive dressing vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared ‐ · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

It is very uncertain whether triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream with occlusive dressing changes proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared ‐ compared with clobetasol cream 0.05% cream (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.2 [0.72, 2]
1 study · 19 participants
Very low

Triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream with occlusive dressing vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Proportion of participants with adverse effects serious or severe enough to have caused withdrawal ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream with occlusive dressing vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Proportion of participants with at least 50% improvement in their quality of life ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream with occlusive dressing vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Proportion of participants achieving a 50% reduction in disease severity ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% cream with occlusive dressing vs clobetasol cream 0.05% cream

Proportion of participants without relapse in the long term ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found