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.

Population

Intervention or exposure

Comparison

Outcome

Any field or review title

Field or topic

Source

Review versions

1,590 questions in 129 reviews · Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer

current versions

No studies 281 · 17.7%Ungraded 74 · 4.7%Very low 410 · 25.8%Low 420 · 26.4%Moderate 280 · 17.6%High 125 · 7.9%

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
Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) Symptomatic deep vein thrombosis · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 1.7 [0.8, 3.63]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) Pulmonary embolism · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 9 [0.49, 166.17]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) Major bleeding ‐ not reported · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Pulmonary embolism · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents: 6 months follow‐up Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 1 [0.25, 3.95]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) vs low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) Minor bleeding ‐ not reported · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Aspirin (ASA) vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) All‐cause mortality ‐ not reported · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Aspirin (ASA) vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) Symptomatic deep vein thrombosis ‐ not reported · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Aspirin (ASA) vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) Major bleeding ‐ not reported · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Aspirin (ASA) vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) Minor bleeding · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 5 [0.31, 79.94]	1 study · 8 participants	Very low
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Major bleeding · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents: 6 months follow‐up Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 7 [0.36, 134.72]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Minor bleeding · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents: 6 months follow‐up Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 6 [0.73, 49.43]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) All‐cause mortality · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 0.5 [0.05, 5.47]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Symptomatic deep vein thrombosis · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 0.71 [0.35, 1.44]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Pulmonary embolism · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	RR 1 [0.25, 3.95]	1 study · 440 participants	Very low
Aspirin (ASA) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) Major bleeding ‐ not reported · ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents Antithrombotic therapy for ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma receiving immunomodulatory agents (2021) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Green tea extract supplementation vs placebo Prostate cancer incidence · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.5 [0.18, 1.36]	3 studies · 201 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Stomach cancer risk (18 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.86 [0.74, 1.01]	438595 participants	Very low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Liver cancer risk (6 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.88 [0.68, 1.14]	198885 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Pancreatic cancer risk (9 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.88 [0.7, 1.1]	326564 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Colorectal cancer risk (16 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.84 [0.74, 0.96]	610295 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Colon cancer risk (10 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.89 [0.8, 0.98]	389974 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Rectal cancer risk (9 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.89 [0.75, 1.05]	356851 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Lung cancer risk (17 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.88 [0.76, 1.02]	269565 participants	Very low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Breast cancer risk (14 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.88 [0.75, 1.02]	250822 participants	Very low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Gynaecological cancer risk (10 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.69 [0.57, 0.83]	66738 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Endometrial cancer risk (5 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.77 [0.65, 0.91]	60416 participants	Low
Green tea extract supplementation vs placebo Gynaecological cancer incidence · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 1.5 [0.41, 5.48]	2 studies · 1157 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Ovarian cancer risk (5 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.64 [0.45, 0.9]	6322 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Prostate cancer risk (13 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.73 [0.56, 0.94]	127239 participants	Very low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Urinary tract cancer risk (7 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 1.04 [0.79, 1.37]	156039 participants	Very low
Green tea extract supplementation vs placebo Non‐melanoma skin cancer incidence · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 1 [0.06, 15.92]	1 study · 1075 participants	Low
Green tea extract supplementation vs placebo Quality of life · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Any cancer incidence (3 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.83 [0.65, 1.07]	52479 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Any cancer mortality (8 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.99 [0.91, 1.07]	504366 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Oral cancer risk (5 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.71	55977 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Any gut cancer risk (7 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.78 [0.59, 1.02]	70299 participants	Low
Highest vs lowest green tea exposure Oesophageal cancer risk (13 studies) · adults (aged at least 18 years) Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer (2020) · Cochrane	RR 0.81 [0.64, 1.04]	74895 participants	Very low
Intervention NR Anxiety · individuals with any cancer at any stage Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	5 studies · 277 participants	Very low
Intervention NR Depression · individuals with any cancer at any stage Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	9 studies · 1059 participants	Very low
Intervention NR Fatigue · individuals with any cancer at any stage Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	6 studies · 895 participants	Very low
Intervention NR Emotional distress · individuals with any cancer at any stage Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	5 studies · 968 participants	Very low
Intervention NR Other outcomes included uncertainty, pain, sexually related symptoms, dyspnoea, and general symptoms. Data for any of these outcomes were not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity across all aspects. Magnitudes of effect were not reported · individuals with any cancer at any stage Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 participants	Very low
Daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy (supportive care alone) Overall survival · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	HR 2.01 [1.58, 2.55]	4 studies · 397 participants	Moderate
Daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy (supportive care alone) Adverse effects · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 289 participants	Ungraded
Daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy (supportive care alone) Progression free survival · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 81 participants	Ungraded
Daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy (supportive care alone) Quality of life · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 81 participants	Ungraded
Hypofractionated radiotherapy vs daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy Overall survival · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	HR 0.95 [0.78, 1.17]	5 studies · 943 participants	Very low
Hypofractionated radiotherapy vs daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy Adverse effects · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 848 participants	Ungraded
Hypofractionated radiotherapy vs daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy Progression free survival · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	0 studies · 0 participants	Ungraded
Hypofractionated radiotherapy vs daily conventionally fractionated radiotherapy Quality of life · people with high grade glioma External beam radiation dose escalation for high grade glioma (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 361 participants	Ungraded