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.

Limit to evidence status or GRADE (optional)

729 questions in 45 reviews · Consumers and Communication

current versions
No studies 188 · 25.8%Ungraded 93 · 12.8%Very low 155 · 21.3%Low 189 · 25.9%Moderate 90 · 12.3%High 14 · 1.9%

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.

QuestionEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Summary of findings: Email as additional communication method vs standard methods: Patient participants
Patient behaviours and actions · Healthcare usersa
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 147 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email as additional communication method vs standard methods: Patient participants
Health service outcome; resource use · Healthcare usersa
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted3 studies · 379 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email as additional communication method vs standard methods: Patient participants
Health professional outcomes · Healthcare usersa
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email as additional communication method vs standard methods: Patient participants
Harms · Healthcare usersa
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email as additional communication method vs standard methods: Healthcare professional participants
Patient related outcomes · Physicians
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email as additional communication method vs standard methods: Healthcare professional participants
Health service outcome; resource use · Physicians
Email for clinical communication between patients/caregivers and healthcare professionals (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 230 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs standard mail
Patient or caregiver behaviours/actions · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 96 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs usual care
Healthcare professional outcomes · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email communication vs usual care
Harms · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email communication vs standard mail
Patient or caregiver understanding and support · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 44 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs standard mail
Health service outcome: uptake of preventive screening · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted3 studies · 1859 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs standard mail
Healthcare professional outcomes · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email communication vs standard mail
Harms · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Summary of findings: Email communication vs usual care
Patient or caregiver behaviours/actions · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 132 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs usual care
Patient health status and well‐being · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 49 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs usual care
Patient or caregiver understanding and support · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 49 participantsVery low
Summary of findings: Email communication vs usual care
Health service outcomes · Adultsa
Email for the provision of information on disease prevention and health promotion (2012) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
Reminder packages vs no reminder packages
Adherence (% of pills taken) · people taking self‐administered medications
Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self‐administered long‐term medications (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted6 studies · 772 participantsLow
Reminder packages vs no reminder packages
Adherence (self‐ reported) · people taking self‐administered medications
Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self‐administered long‐term medications (2011) · Cochrane
OR 0.89 [0.56, 1.4]2 studies · 339 participantsVery low
Reminder packages vs no reminder packages
Systolic blood pressure · people taking self‐administered medications
Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self‐administered long‐term medications (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 153 participantsVery low
Reminder packages vs no reminder packages
Diastolic blood pressure · people taking self‐administered medications
Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self‐administered long‐term medications (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 153 participantsVery low
Reminder packages vs no reminder packages
Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level · people taking self‐administered medications
Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self‐administered long‐term medications (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 148 participantsVery low
Natural frequencies vs probabilities
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted642 participantsModerate
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs number needed
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted9024 participantsModerate
Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs absolute risk reduction (ARR)
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk reduction) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted469 participantsModerate
Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs absolute risk reduction (ARR)
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1116 participantsLow
Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs absolute risk reduction (ARR)
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted11221 participantsModerate
Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs number needed
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk reduction) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted182 participantsModerate
Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs number needed
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted970 participantsModerate
Relative risk reduction (RRR) vs number needed
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted9582 participantsModerate
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs number needed
Understanding (measured as correct estimate or interpretation of a risk reduction) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted182 participantsModerate
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) vs number needed
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) · health professionals and consumers
Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted949 participantsModerate
Intervention NR
Understanding · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 124 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Behavior · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted16 studies · 11629 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Perception (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted2 studies · 226 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Persuasiveness (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted8 studies · 1068 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Behavior · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 282 participantsModerate
Intervention NR
Perception ‐ screening message (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted5 studies · 513 participantsModerate
Intervention NR
Perception ‐ prevention message (measured as rating on a scale of perceived effectiveness) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted9 studies · 815 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Persuasiveness ‐ screening message (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted6 studies · 931 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Persuasiveness ‐ prevention message (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted13 studies · 1496 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Persuasiveness ‐ treatment message (measured as a hypothetical decision or intention or willingness to adopt an intervention) · consumers
Framing of health information messages (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted3 studies · 1788 participantsVery low
Intervention NR
Self‐efficacy for health information seeking 4‐item Likert scale. Scale from: 0 to 10. ( · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 448 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Health information evaluation skills Difference in the quality ratings given to web pages. Scale from: ‐9 to 9. ( · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 448 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Number of times the patient discussed online information with a health provider Episodes the consumer had discussed online information with a health provider in the previous 3 months. Scale from: 0 to unlimited. ( · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted1 study · 448 participantsLow
Intervention NR
Ability to search for online health information ‐ not measured · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Intervention NR
Knowledge and understanding of how to find, evaluate and use online health information ‐ not measured · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Intervention NR
Computer literacy ‐ not measured · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Intervention NR
Adverse events · Adult consumers
Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
Intervention NR
Psychological distress · informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease
Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease (2011) · Cochrane
no estimate extracted8 studies · 936 participantsLow