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.
2,112 questions in 171 reviews · Eyes and Vision
current versionsNo studies 587 · 27.8%Ungraded 95 · 4.5%Very low 446 · 21.1%Low 557 · 26.4%Moderate 361 · 17.1%High 66 · 3.1%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants whose maximum K increased by at least 2 diopters—at 24 months · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants whose keratoconus remained stable—at 24 months · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.92 [0.76, 1.12] | 1 study · 31 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Mean change in corrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) from baseline or final values at 12 months or more · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 51 participants | Low |
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants who gained 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | RR 2.73 [0.36, 20.74] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants who lost 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1 [0.88, 1.13] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Adverse outcomes · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 203 participants | Low |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants whose maximum K decreased by at least 2 diopters—at 12 months · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.32 [0.09, 1.12] | 1 study · 61 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants whose maximum K increased by at least 2 diopters—at 12 months · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 61 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants whose keratoconus remained stable—at 12 months · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 131 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Mean change in corrected distance visual acuity (logMAR) from baseline or final values—at 12 months or more · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 137 participants | Very low |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants who gained 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Proportion of participants who lost 10 or more logMAR letters from baseline · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transepithelial CXL vs epithelium‐off CXL Adverse outcomes—corneal haze or scarring · participants with keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 221 participants | Moderate |
Transepithelial CXL using iontophoresis vs epithelium‐off CXL Mean change in maximum K from baseline or final value—at 12 months or more (diopters) · participants with progressive keratoconus Transepithelial versus epithelium‐off corneal crosslinking for progressive keratoconus (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 51 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Length of hospital stay · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | MD 4.3 | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Preservation of visual acuity · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1 [0.82, 1.22] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Severity of pain on day 3 · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Duration of time requiring intravenous antibiotics · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | MD 3 | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Need for surgical intervention · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1 [0.11, 9.23] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Adverse effects: exposure keratopathy · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.2 [0.4, 3.63] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Standard treatment plus systemic corticosteroids vs standard treatment alone Return visit to health care (not reported) · patients age 10 years and older with periorbital or orbital cellulitis Corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Change in BCVA from baseline to 6‐month · People with lamellar macular holes Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Change in metamorphopsia from baseline to 6‐month · People with lamellar macular holes Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Change in anatomical outcomes (CRT) from baseline to 6‐month · People with lamellar macular holes Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Retinal sensitivity · People with lamellar macular holes Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Vision‐related quality of life · People with lamellar macular holes Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Adverse outcomes · People with lamellar macular holes Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Subjective improvement in symptoms at 1 month and 3 months · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Measurements of eradication or decrease in numbers of colonies of positive cultures of bacteria · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Clinical signs—Schirmer test scores at 1 month (mm/5 min) · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 93 participants | Very low |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Clinical signs—TBUT at 1 month (seconds) · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 93 participants | Very low |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Adverse events at 1 month · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | RR 6.13 [1.94, 19.41] | 1 study · 93 participants | Very low |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Quality of life measures · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Oral antibiotics vs placebo Economic costs and benefits of different interventions · adult participants with chronic blepharitis Oral antibiotics for chronic blepharitis (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Trainee operating time in the operating room (minutes) · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 12 participants | Very low |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Intraoperative complications (number of cases) · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 19 participants | Very low |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Postoperative complications · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Trainee operating time in a simulated setting (minutes) · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Simulator task ratings (range 0–100; higher score indicates better performance) · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Supervising physician ratingsin the operating room · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Virtual reality training vs wet laboratory or no supplementary training Supervising physician ratingsin simulated settings (range 0–100; higher score indicates better performance) · ophthalmology trainees for cataract surgery Virtual reality training for cataract surgery operating performance in ophthalmology trainees (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Blindness (visual acuity less than 20/200) · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Any adverse visual outcome · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Gonococcal conjunctivitis · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.79 [0.24, 2.65] | 3 studies · 8229 participants | Very low |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Chlamydial conjunctivitis · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.96 [0.57, 1.61] | 2 studies · 4874 participants | Low |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Bacterial conjunctivitis · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.84 [0.37, 1.93] | 2 studies · 3685 participants | Low |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Any conjunctivitis of any aetiology · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.65 [0.54, 0.78] | 8 studies · 9666 participants | Moderate |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Conjunctivitis of unknown aetiology · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.75 [0.37, 8.28] | 1 study · 330 participants | Very low |
Any prophylaxis vs no prophylaxis Adverse effects · newborn children Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum (2020) · Cochrane | OR 0.93 | 1993 participants | Very low |
Radiotherapy vs control Loss of 3 or more lines of best‐corrected visual acuity Measured using a logMAR chart · people with neovascular AMD Radiotherapy for neovascular age‐related macular degeneration (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.82 [0.64, 1.04] | NR | Low |