Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

59 questions · 70 findings · 8 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 16 · 22.9%GRADE not reported 40 · 57.1%Very low 7 · 10%Low 4 · 5.7%Moderate 2 · 2.9%High 1 · 1.4%

Amifostine (intravenous) vs Amifostine (subcutaneous)

Locoregional control · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Amifostine (intravenous) showed no clear difference in locoregional tumour control compared with amifostine (subcutaneous); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Amifostine (intravenous) vs Amifostine (subcutaneous)

Salivary flow rate · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Amifostine (intravenous) vs Amifostine (subcutaneous)

Adverse effects · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region
1 finding from 1 review

Amifostine (intravenous) vs Amifostine (subcutaneous)

Overall survival · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Amifostine (intravenous) showed no clear difference in overall survival compared with amifostine (subcutaneous); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Amifostine (intravenous) vs Amifostine (subcutaneous)

Xerostomia (grade >= 2, 0-4 scale) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Amifostine (intravenous) led to lower xerostomia (grade >= 2, 0-4 scale) compared with amifostine (subcutaneous); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Amount of analgesia · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Patient quality of life · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Viral isolates (HSV isolates identified, with or without clinical symptoms) · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) led to lower viral isolates (HSV isolates identified, with or without clinical… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) led to lower presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Length of hospital stay · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Recurrence of lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)

Cost of oral care · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)
1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs placebo

Adverse effects · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)
1 finding from 1 review

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs Chlorhexidine mouthwash

Oral mucositis (any severity) · Children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia receiving chemotherapy alone

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), intravenous led to lower oral mucositis (any severity) compared with chlorhexidine mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs Chlorhexidine mouthwash

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia receiving chemotherapy alone

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), intravenous led to lower oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with chlorhexidine mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review