Gap finder
Search review questions
Each row is one question a systematic review asked: who, what, compared with what, and which outcome, with the effect it found and how certain that is. Words match anywhere in the field.
612 questions in 46 reviews · Work
current versionsNo studies 78 · 12.7%Ungraded 4 · 0.7%Very low 295 · 48.2%Low 182 · 29.7%Moderate 49 · 8%High 4 · 0.7%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive rehabilitation vs conventional treatment Quality of life Perceived Quality of Life scale. Scores range from 10 to 100, higher scores indicate better quality of life. · people with traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 68 participants | Moderate |
Hospital‐based cognitive rehabilitation vs home programme Return to work Return to work status · active duty military personnel within 3 months of moderate‐to‐severe traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.95 [0.85, 1.05] | 1 study · 120 participants | Moderate |
Cognitive didactic therapy vs functional experiential therapy Return to work Return to work status · adult veterans or active duty military service personnel with moderate‐to‐severe traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.1 [0.83, 1.46] | 1 study · 366 participants | Moderate |
(RCT) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems Needlestick injuries immediate · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (RCTs) Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.2 [0.01, 4.15] | 1 study · 550 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Number of reported sharps injuries, level · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Number of reported sharps injuries, slope · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT Questionnaire reported Needlestick injuries 6 mo · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.42 [0.14, 1.25] | 1 study · 154 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT Questionnaire reported Needlestick injuries 12 mo · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.2 [0.04, 0.96] | 1 study · 144 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT Hospital reported Needlestick injuries 6 mo · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.2 [0.51, 2.84] | 1 study · 533 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe injection systems vs regular systems RCT Hospital reported Needlestick injuries 12 mo · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.72 [0.28, 1.81] | 1 study · 533 participants | Very low |
(CBA) Safe injection systems vs regular systems Needlestick injury rate · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.34 [0.04, 3.28] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Safe passive injection systems vs safe active injection systems Change in level of needlestick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Safe passive injection systems vs safe active injection systems Change in slope of needlestick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Low |
(ITS) Multiple safe devices vs regular devices Number of reported sharps injuries, level · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems Blood splashes · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (RCTs) Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.14 [0.02, 1.15] | 1 study · 550 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Multiple safe devices vs regular devices Number of reported sharps injuries, slope · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(CBA) Multiple safe devices vs regular devices Needle stick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.11 [0.01, 0.81] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Sharps containers vs no containers Number of reported sharps injuries, level · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Sharps containers vs no containers Number of reported sharps injuries, slope · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(CBA) Sharps containers vs no containers Number of needlestick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.88 [0.78, 0.99] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
(CBA) Sharps containers vs no containers Number of container related needlestick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.22 [0.11, 0.41] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Legislation vs no legislation NSI‐ change in level ‐ Interruption · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Moderate |
(ITS) Legislation vs no legislation NSI‐ change in level ‐ Gradual introduction · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Low |
(ITS) Legislation vs no legislation NSI‐ Change in slope ‐ Interruption · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Legislation vs no legislation NSI‐ Change in slope ‐ Gradual introduction · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1 participants | Low |
(ITS) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems Number of reported sharps injuries, level ‐ reported seperately for needle sheath and cap shield studies · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (ITS) Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(ITS) Safe blood collection systems vs regular systems Number of reported sharps injuries, slope ‐ reported seperately for needle sheath and cap shield studies · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (ITS) Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Needlestick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.62 [0.27, 1.41] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Incidences of blood contamination ‐ Active systems · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.6 [1.08, 2.36] | 4 studies · 961 participants | Low |
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Incidences of blood contamination ‐ Passive systems · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.94 [0.5, 1.75] | 2 studies · 528 participants | Low |
(RCT) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Incidence of blood leakage ‐ Active systems · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.21 [0.11, 0.37] | 1 study · 147 participants | Low |
(CBA) Safe intravenous systems vs regular systems Number of needlestick injuries · preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel (2017) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.06 [0, 1.09] | 1 study · 1 participants | Very low |
Organisational level workplace culture intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported workplace civility, on a scale of 1 to 5; higher score more civility · Employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2969 participants | Very low |
Individual level cognitive behavioural intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported victimisation. Post intervention. · Adult workers with a learning disability Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.55 [0.24, 1.25] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Individual level cognitive behavioural intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported victimisation. Three‐month · Adult workers with a learning disability Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.49 [0.21, 1.15] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Individual level cognitive behavioural intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported perpetration. Post intervention. · Adult workers with a learning disability Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.64 [0.27, 1.54] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Individual level cognitive behavioural intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported perpetration. Three‐month · Adult workers with a learning disability Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.69 [0.26, 1.81] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Organisational level workplace culture intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported co‐worker incivility, on a scale of 0 to 6; higher score more frequent incivility · Employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 907 participants | Very low |
Organisational level workplace culture intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported supervisor incivility, on a scale of 0 to 6; higher score more frequent incivility · Employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 907 participants | Very low |
Organisational level workplace culture intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported frequency of incivility instigation, on a scale of 0 (never) ‐ 6 (daily) **; higher score more frequent incivility · Employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 907 participants | Very low |
Organisational level workplace culture intervention vs no intervention Self‐reported days of absenteeism in previous month. · Employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 907 participants | Very low |
Multilevel educational intervention vs no intervention Bullying · employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1041 participants | Very low |
Multilevel educational intervention vs no intervention Absenteeism · employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 1041 participants | Very low |
Individual level expressive‐writing vs control‐writing Self‐reported frequency of incivility victimisation. · employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 46 participants | Very low |
Individual level expressive‐writing vs control‐writing Self‐reported frequency of incivility perpetration. · employees Interventions for prevention of bullying in the workplace (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 46 participants | Very low |
Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice Time to return to work ‐ short‐term · workers on sick leave Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (2017) · Cochrane | HR 1.32 [0.93, 1.88] | 2 studies · 161 participants | Low |
Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ short‐term · workers on sick leave Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.87 [0.63, 1.19] | 4 studies · 675 participants | Very low |
Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ long‐term · workers on sick leave Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.03 [0.97, 1.09] | 8 studies · 3822 participants | Moderate |
Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice Proportion who had ever returned to work ‐ very long‐term · workers on sick leave Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.95 [0.88, 1.02] | 3 studies · 938 participants | Low |
Return to work coordination programmes vs usual practice Time to return to work ‐ long‐term · workers on sick leave Return‐to‐work coordination programmes for improving return to work in workers on sick leave (2017) · Cochrane | HR 1.25 [0.95, 1.66] | 6 studies · 1935 participants | Low |