Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

55 questions · 58 findings · 2 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 4 · 6.9%GRADE not reported 49 · 84.5%Very low 2 · 3.4%Low 2 · 3.4%Moderate 1 · 1.7%High 0 · 0%

3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) vs Ciprofloxacin + ornidazole + minocycline

Outcome not reported · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with 3Mix pulpectomy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with 3Mix pulpectomy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) vs 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Vitapex (calcium hydroxide/iodoform) showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with 3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mixed beam (neutron and photon) radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Mixed beam (neutron and photon) radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated/accelerated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review

Low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy vs High dose rate interstitial radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with high dose rate interstitial radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperfractionated/accelerated split-course radiotherapy vs Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or… showed no clear difference in disease free survival compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Neutron radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Neutron radiotherapy showed no clear difference in disease free survival compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost showed no clear difference in total mortality compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review