evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,410 questions · 8,901 findings · 1,091 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,687 · 19%GRADE not reported 1,469 · 16.5%Very low 1,969 · 22.1%Low 2,060 · 23.1%Moderate 1,302 · 14.6%High 414 · 4.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Summary of findings table ‐ Silicone earplugs vs no earplugs

Normal auditory functioning at discharge · preterm or very low birth weight infants

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Silicone earplugs changes normal auditory functioning at discharge compared with no earplugs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Summary of findings table ‐ Silicone earplugs vs no earplugs

All‐cause mortality during hospital stay · preterm or very low birth weight infants

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Silicone earplugs changes all‐cause mortality during hospital stay compared with no earplugs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) may leads to higher overjet compared with facemask only (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Tandem traction bow appliance vs no intervention

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Tandem traction bow appliance led to higher overjet compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Forsus

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to higher ANB compared with reverse Forsus; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask only

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask only (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to higher overjet compared with modified tandem appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask vs no intervention

Adverse effects (temporomandibular joint signs and symptoms) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in overjet compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) led to higher ANB compared with untreated control (no treatment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to lower ANB compared with mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME)

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to lower wits appraisal compared with reverse Twin Block with lip pads and rapid maxillary expander (RME); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask showed no clear difference in ANB compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

Wits appraisal · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review