Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,271 questions · 1,326 findings · 329 reviews

No studies found 247 · 18.6%GRADE not reported 237 · 17.9%Very low 379 · 28.6%Low 285 · 21.5%Moderate 141 · 10.6%High 37 · 2.8%

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Total time required to complete the clinical procedure · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed procedure time; such outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Repair of root perforations · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    >=1 year after treatment
    None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted (three potentially eligible trials were identified from 1234 records; all were excluded).
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

School-based interventions may reduce dental plaque scores (SMD -0.32, favouring intervention), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Oral hygiene measured by mean gingival scores · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

The effect of school-based interventions on gingival scores is uncertain and not statistically significant (SMD 0.12; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Among children aged 6-8 years, DMFT scores were significantly reduced (SMD -0.11); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Oral-health-education interventions significantly reduced net increment in DMFS (SMD -1.05); no significant subgroup difference vs other interventions (P=0.74).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries prevalence measured by dmft or DMFT/S score greater than one · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

School-based interventions may reduce the prevalence of dental caries (RR 0.70, favouring intervention), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

3 findings from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Among children aged 5-8 years, net increment in DMFT was not significantly reduced (SMD -0.36); no significant subgroup difference by age.

3 findings from 1 review

Infliximab combined with purine analogues vs purine analogues

Clinical relapse · Participants with Crohn's disease in remission

Infliximab combined with purine analogues probably leads to lower clinical relapse (at 48 weeks, CDAI of 150 or greater together with… compared with purine analogues (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings for the main comparison: comprehensive care programmes vs usual care

Parent health, functioning, and quality of life Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) (higher scores = more of the outcome of interest, which can mean improvement or deterioration depending on the outcome) · children with medical complexity
1 finding from 1 review

Pressure‐garment therapy (PGT) vs no treatment/lanolin

Scar improvement (POSAS) (0–10, higher score = more severe scarring) · people with burn wounds likely to develop hypertrophic scarring
2 findings from 1 review

Pressure‐garment therapy (PGT) plus silicone vs no treatment/lanolin

Scar improvement (POSAS) (0–10, higher score = more severe scarring) · people with burn wounds likely to develop hypertrophic scarring
2 findings from 1 review