Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,432 questions · 1,467 findings · 116 reviews · Headline outcomes only

No studies found 232 · 15.8%GRADE not reported 202 · 13.8%Very low 286 · 19.5%Low 327 · 22.3%Moderate 286 · 19.5%High 134 · 9.1%

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