Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

318 questions · 353 findings · 50 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 31 · 8.8%GRADE not reported 53 · 15%Very low 99 · 28%Low 95 · 26.9%Moderate 68 · 19.3%High 7 · 2%

Selective or stepwise carious tissue removal vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal

Proportion of dentists selecting selective or stepwise removal · Dentists surveyed about deep carious lesions in permanent teeth

In Oen 2007, 18% of surveyed dentists selected selective or stepwise removal.

12 findings from 1 review

Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Multiple countries · Oen 2007
Proportion (%) 18 [11, 27]
1 study · 85 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Brazil · Weber 2013
Proportion (%) 21 [12, 34]
1 study · 53 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Brazil · Chisini 2015
Proportion (%) 62 [55, 69]
1 study · 171 participants
GRADE not reported

Show 9 more findings

Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
United States · Seale and Glickman 2007 (pedodontists)
Proportion (%) 71 [65, 77]
1 study · 252 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Norway · Schwendicke 2016 (Norway)
Proportion (%) 99 [95, 100]
1 study · 199 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
United States · Seale and Glickman 2007 (all 376 conference dentists; source mislabels as 'endodontists', but only 102 were endodontists)
Proportion (%) 59 [54, 64]
1 study · 376 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Norway · Stangvaltaite 2013
Proportion (%) 51 [44, 58]
1 study · 212 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Germany · Schwendicke 2016 (Germany)
Proportion (%) 68 [64, 71]
1 study · 622 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Germany · Schwendicke 2013
Proportion (%) 50 [47, 53]
1 study · 799 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
United States · McBride 2010
Proportion (%) 35 [32, 38]
1 study · 812 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
Brazil · Katz 2013
Proportion (%) 45 [26, 55]
1 study · 108 participants
GRADE not reported
Understanding dentists' management of deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016 All outcomes
France · Schwendicke 2016 (France)
Proportion (%) 49 [45, 52]
1 study · 661 participants
GRADE not reported

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Severe perineal/vaginal trauma · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

Selective may leads to lower severe perineal/vaginal trauma compared with routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.7 [0.52, 0.94]
8 studies · 5375 participants
Low

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Blood loss at delivery · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 336 participants
Very low

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 501 participants
Moderate

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Perineal infection · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

Selective showed no clear difference in perineal infection compared with routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.9 [0.45, 1.82]
3 studies · 1467 participants
Low

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Women with moderate or severe pain (measured by visual analogue scale) · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

It is very uncertain whether selective changes women with moderate or severe pain (measured by visual analogue scale) compared with routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.71 [0.48, 1.05]
1 study · 165 participants
Very low

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Women with long‐term dyspareunia (≥ 6 months) · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

Selective showed no clear difference in women with long‐term dyspareunia (≥ 6 months) compared with routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.14 [0.84, 1.53]
3 studies · 1107 participants
Moderate

Selective vs routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal delivery was not anticipated

Women with long‐term urinary incontinence (≥ 6 months) · Women in labour where operative delivery was not anticipated. (Women were above 16 years old and between 28 gestational weeks and full…

Selective showed no clear difference in women with long‐term urinary incontinence (≥ 6 months) compared with routine episiotomy: all vaginal births where operative vaginal… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.98 [0.67, 1.44]
3 studies · 1107 participants
Low

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Function: mean change in pain with movement from baseline on4‐point (0 to 3, 0 best function) Likert scale · acute gout

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Global assessment of treatment success · acute gout

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Moderate

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Health‐related quality of life (mental) · acute gout

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Low

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Withdrawals due to adverse events · acute gout

Non‐selective NSAIDs probably leads to higher withdrawals due to adverse events compared with selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.34 [1.33, 4.14]
Studies not reported
Moderate

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Total adverse events · acute gout

Non‐selective NSAIDs probably leads to higher total adverse events compared with selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.94 [1.36, 2.78]
Studies not reported
Moderate

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · acute gout

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Moderate

Non‐selective NSAIDs vs selective cyclo‐oxygenase‐2 inhibitors

Swelling (mean) · acute gout

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute gout 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
Moderate

Selective COX‐2 inhibitors vs NSAIDs

Return to work · Patients with acute low‐back pain

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Selective COX‐2 inhibitors vs NSAIDs

Change in pain intensity from baseline on VAS (0 to 100) short‐term · Patients with acute low‐back pain

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 437 participants
Low

Selective COX‐2 inhibitors vs NSAIDs

Disability ODI (0 to 50; lower = better) · Patients with acute low‐back pain

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 437 participants
Moderate

Selective COX‐2 inhibitors vs NSAIDs

Proportion of participants experiencing global improvement % of dichotomized Likert scale · Patients with acute low‐back pain

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 333 participants
Low

Selective COX‐2 inhibitors vs NSAIDs

Proportion of participants experiencing adverse events · Patients with acute low‐back pain

It is very uncertain whether selective COX‐2 inhibitors changes proportion of participants experiencing adverse events compared with non‐selective NSAIDs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs for acute low back pain 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.97 [0.63, 1.5]
2 studies · 444 participants
Very low