Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,490 questions · 1,526 findings · 124 reviews

No studies found 263 · 17.2%GRADE not reported 224 · 14.7%Very low 292 · 19.1%Low 327 · 21.4%Moderate 286 · 18.7%High 134 · 8.8%

Summary of findings for combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing vs conventional treatment (separate testing)

All‐cause mortality · adults and children with pulmonary exacerbation due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination therapy vs metformin plus another antidiabetic drug

M + GLP1‐A
2 findings from 1 review

Metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination therapy vs metformin plus another antidiabetic drug

M + DPP4‐I

It is very uncertain whether metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination… changes M + DPP4‐I compared with metformin plus another antidiabetic drug (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination therapy vs metformin plus another antidiabetic drug

M + thiazolidinedione

It is very uncertain whether metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination… changes M + thiazolidinedione compared with metformin plus another antidiabetic drug (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination therapy vs metformin plus another antidiabetic drug

M + nateglinide
4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination therapy vs metformin plus another antidiabetic drug

M + SGLT2‐I

It is very uncertain whether metformin‐sulphonylurea (second‐ or third‐generation) combination… changes M + SGLT2‐I compared with metformin plus another antidiabetic drug (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single)

Depression: meeting study criteria for depression at end of · people with depression after stroke

Pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… may leads to lower depression: meeting the criteria for depression at end of treatment… compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single)

Depression: < 50% reduction in scale scores at end of treatment (primary outcome) · people with depression after stroke

It is very uncertain whether pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… changes depression: < 50% reduction in scale scores at end of treatment… compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single)

Depression: mean scores at end of treatment (secondary outcome) · people with depression after stroke
1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single)

Adverse events: death ‐ at end of treatment (secondary outcome) · people with depression after stroke

It is very uncertain whether pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… changes adverse events: death (secondary outcome) compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single)

Adverse events: all ‐ central nervous system events (e.g. headache, seizures) (secondary outcome) · people with depression after stroke

It is very uncertain whether pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… changes adverse events: all ‐ central nervous system events (e.g. headache,… compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention (combination) vs a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (single)

Adverse events: all ‐ other events ‐ not listed above (e.g. dysuria, neck pain, eye discomfort) (secondary outcome) · people with depression after stroke

It is very uncertain whether pharmacological intervention and non‐invasive brain stimulation… changes adverse events: all ‐ other events ‐ not listed above (e.g.… compared with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination system (Isolite) vs Conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector)

Reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic scaling / AGP · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic… compared with saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Combination system (Isolite) vs Rubber dam + HVE

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during water spray using high-speed handpiece · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during water… compared with rubber dam + HVE (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Combination system (Isolite) vs HVE

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during water spray using high-speed handpiece · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during water… compared with HVE (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review