Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

839 questions · 881 findings · 73 reviews

No studies found 246 · 27.9%GRADE not reported 156 · 17.7%Very low 219 · 24.9%Low 136 · 15.4%Moderate 90 · 10.2%High 34 · 3.9%

CERA vs other ESA

Final Hb · patients with the anaemia of end‐stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis
3 findings from 1 review

CERA vs other ESA

All‐cause mortality: CERA every 2 weeks versus rHuEPO · patients with the anaemia of end‐stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis

CERA showed no clear difference in all‐cause mortality: CERA every 2 weeks versus rHuEPO compared with other ESA (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CERA vs other ESA

Transfusions: CERA every 2 weeks versus rHuEPO · patients with the anaemia of end‐stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis

CERA showed no clear difference in transfusions: CERA every 2 weeks versus rHuEPO compared with other ESA (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CERA vs other ESA

Adverse events: hypertension · patients with the anaemia of end‐stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis

CERA showed no clear difference in numbers of adverse events due to hypertension: CERA every 2 weeks… compared with other ESA (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CERA vs other ESA

Numbers of adverse events due to access thrombosis · patients with the anaemia of end‐stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis

CERA showed no clear difference in numbers of adverse events due to access thrombosis: CERA every 2… compared with other ESA (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Denzir all-ceramic FDP vs In-Ceram Zirconia all-ceramic FDP

Reconstruction failure / chip fractures (12 months) · Patients with all-ceramic implant FDP reconstructions; parallel group, 12-month
1 finding from 1 review

Alternative alloy FDP (e.g., Ceramalloy II / base-metal / palladium-silver) vs High-gold content control alloy FDP (Olympia)

Restoration survival · Patients receiving crowns and FDPs; split-mouth, 10-year

Alternative alloy FDP (e.g., Ceramalloy II / base-metal /… led to higher restoration survival (Ceramalloy II versus Olympia) compared with high-gold content control alloy FDP (Olympia); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

Periodontal/peri-implant status (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No data were presented for any of the pre-specified secondary outcomes. The trial registered pocket depth, bleeding on probing and mobility at follow-up visits but did not report the data.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP)

It is very uncertain whether metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient aesthetic satisfaction changes) compared with metal-ceramic FDPs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

'Driving whilst intoxicated' programme + incarceration vs incarceration alone

Reconviction (for drink‐driving) Assessed by: Cox regression of re‐arrest rates over 24 months Timing of assessment: 24 months · adults with antisocial personality disorder

It is very uncertain whether 'Driving whilst intoxicated' programme + incarceration changes reconviction (for drink‐driving) Assessed by: Cox regression of… compared with incarceration alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review
  • No comparative data were presented with regard to aesthetics. Aesthetics evaluated by the patient was reported dichotomously (yes/no) in the trial but no between-group estimate was presented.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Periodontal/peri-implant status (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review
  • No comparative data were presented for the pre-specified secondary outcomes. The trial analyzed and reported plaque index, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth but no between-group estimate was presented in the…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) changes bridge complications compared with metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review