Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,359 questions · 2,491 findings · 249 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 696 · 27.9%GRADE not reported 213 · 8.6%Very low 611 · 24.5%Low 595 · 23.9%Moderate 315 · 12.6%High 61 · 2.4%

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

Support surface associated patient comfort · pressure ulcer prevention

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 76 participants
Very low

Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces

Health‐related quality of life · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Foam surfaces vs reactive foam and gel surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

All reported adverse events · pressure ulcer prevention

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 2181 participants
Very low

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

QoL · pressure ulcer prevention

2 findings from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 267 participants
Low
Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 233 participants
Low

Foam surfaces vs alternating pressure (active) air surfaces

Cost‐effectiveness · pressure ulcer prevention

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 1 participants
Moderate

Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer · pressure ulcer prevention

Foam surfaces may leads to higher proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive air surfaces (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.4 [1.04, 5.54]
4 studies · 229 participants
Low

Foam surfaces vs reactive air surfaces

Time to pressure ulcer development · pressure ulcer prevention

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether extraction of lower deciduous canines changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding, change) at 1-2 years compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 to 2 years
MD -4.76 [-6.24, -3.28]
1 study · 83 participants
Very low

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to lower lower molars to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
MD -0.91 [-1.58, -0.24]
1 study · 34 participants
GRADE not reported

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) led to higher size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
5 years
MD 1.03 [0.56, 1.50]
1 study · 77 participants
GRADE not reported

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year
MD 3.01 [1.71, 4.31]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of lower deciduous canines led to lower size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year
MD -2.73 [-3.69, -1.77]
1 study · 83 participants
GRADE not reported

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Schwarz appliance led to higher lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
9 months
MD 0.39 [0.11, 0.67]
1 study · 28 participants
GRADE not reported

Lower lingual arch vs No active treatment (control)

Lower molars to mandible (relationship of lower back teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lingual arch led to lower lower molars to mandible at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year
MD -1.11 [-1.51, -0.71]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Oral 5‐ASA vs placebo

Failure to induce global or clinical remission · Patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

Oral 5‐ASA leads to lower failure to induce complete global or clinical remission compared with placebo (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral 5‐aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.86 [0.82, 0.89]
11 studies · 2387 participants
High

Oral 5‐ASA vs SASP

Failure to induce endoscopic remission · Patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral 5‐aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Oral 5‐ASA vs SASP

Failure to adhere to medication regimen · Patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral 5‐aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Oral 5‐ASA vs SASP

Adverse events · Patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

Oral 5‐ASA probably leads to lower adverse events compared with SASP (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral 5‐aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.48 [0.36, 0.63]
12 studies · 909 participants
Moderate

Oral 5‐ASA vs SASP

Serious adverse events · Patients with active mild to moderate ulcerative colitis

Oral 5‐ASA showed no clear difference in serious adverse events compared with SASP (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral 5‐aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.36 [0.28, 6.52]
2 studies · 107 participants
Low