Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,760 questions · 8,065 findings · 1,036 reviews

No studies found 1,686 · 20.9%GRADE not reported 675 · 8.4%Very low 1,953 · 24.2%Low 2,048 · 25.4%Moderate 1,296 · 16.1%High 407 · 5%

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

Bakri balloon tamponade vs haemostatic square suturing to the lower segment of the uterus (intrauterine tamponade versus another mechanical/surgical method)

Serious maternal morbidity (renal or respiratory failure, cardiac arrest or multiple organ failure) · women with complete placenta praevia and intractable bleeding following caesarean section
1 finding from 1 review

Bakri balloon tamponade vs haemostatic square suturing to the lower segment of the uterus (intrauterine tamponade versus another mechanical/surgical method)

Number of women with total blood loss 1000 mL or more after randomisation · women with complete placenta praevia and intractable bleeding following caesarean section

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Bakri balloon tamponade vs haemostatic square suturing to the lower segment of the uterus (intrauterine tamponade versus another mechanical/surgical method)

Blood transfusion (red cell or whole blood) · women with complete placenta praevia and intractable bleeding following caesarean section

It is very uncertain whether bakri balloon tamponade changes blood transfusion (red cell or whole blood) compared with haemostatic square suturing to the lower segment of the uterus… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bakri balloon tamponade vs haemostatic square suturing to the lower segment of the uterus (intrauterine tamponade versus another mechanical/surgical method)

Side effects of the intervention (e.g. trauma, necrosis) · women with complete placenta praevia and intractable bleeding following caesarean section
1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Any cancer risk No. of participants: 19,475 (3 RCTs) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in any cancer risk No. of participants: 19,475 (3 RCTs) compared with lowest selenium exposure (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Cancer mortality risk No. of participants: 17,448 (1 RCT) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in cancer mortality risk No. of participants: 17,448 (1 RCT) compared with lowest selenium exposure (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Colorectal cancer risk (16 studies) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in colorectal cancer risk No. of participants: 19,009 (2 RCTs) compared with lowest selenium exposure (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Non‐melanoma skin cancer risk No. of participants: 2027 (2 RCTs) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in non‐melanoma skin cancer risk No. of participants: 2027 (2 RCTs) compared with lowest selenium exposure (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Lung cancer risk (17 studies) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in lung cancer risk No. of participants: 19,009 (2 RCTs) compared with lowest selenium exposure (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Breast cancer risk (14 studies) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in breast cancer risk No. of participants: 802 (1 RCT) compared with lowest selenium exposure (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Bladder cancer risk No. of participants: 19,009 (2 RCTs) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in bladder cancer risk No. of participants: 19,009 (2 RCTs) compared with lowest selenium exposure (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Highest vs lowest selenium exposure

Prostate cancer risk (13 studies) · Participants in trials with low risk of bias

Highest showed no clear difference in prostate cancer risk No. of participants: 18,942 (4 RCTs) compared with lowest selenium exposure (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

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

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic removable traction appliance (ORTA) vs no intervention

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) vs Frankel III functional appliance

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

Facemask (with frame internal fixation) showed no clear difference in wits appraisal compared with frankel III functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mandibular headgear vs no intervention

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review