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.
2,653 questions in 194 reviews · Gynaecology and Fertility
current versionsNo studies 531 · 20%Ungraded 76 · 2.9%Very low 826 · 31.1%Low 855 · 32.2%Moderate 341 · 12.9%High 24 · 0.9%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles)‐ clomiphene citrate or letrozole · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 4.68 [2.22, 9.86] | 1 study · 201 participants | Moderate |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate per woman · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Miscarriage rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 2.87 [1.18, 7.01] | 2 studies · 454 participants | Moderate |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 9.28 [0.49, 174.6] | 1 study · 201 participants | Low |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Multiple pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 0.5 [0.04, 5.53] | 1 study · 334 participants | Low |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Live birth rate per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.95 [1.1, 3.44] | 1 study · 342 participants | Moderate |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Multiple pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.05 [0.07, 16.9] | 1 study · 342 participants | Low |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.77 [1.01, 3.08] | 1 study · 342 participants | Moderate |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate per woman ‐ not reported · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Miscarriage rater per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 0.91 [0.32, 2.58] | 1 study · 342 participants | Low |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 5.3 [0.25, 111.26] | 1 study · 342 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs IUI Live birth rare per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 2.07 [1.22, 3.5] | 4 studies · 396 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs IUI Multiple pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 3 [0.11, 78.27] | 1 study · 39 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs IUI Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 6.43 [0.56, 73.35] | 1 study · 26 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs IUI Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate per woman ‐ not measured · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.53 [0.88, 2.64] | 1 study · 334 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs IUI Miscarriage rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 5.21 [0.19, 141.08] | 1 study · 26 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs IUI Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 6.48 [0.33, 127.09] | 1 study · 211 participants | Very low |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate per woman ‐ not reported · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Miscarriage rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 0.77 [0.28, 2.11] | 1 study · 334 participants | Low |
IUI in a natural cycle vs TI or expectant management Ectopic pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 5.06 [0.24, 1106.21] | 1 study · 334 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Live birth rate per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.59 [0.88, 2.88] | 2 studies · 208 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Multiple pregnancy rate per couple · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.46 [0.55, 3.87] | 4 studies · 316 participants | Low |
IUI in a stimulated cycle vs TI or expectant management Pregnancy rate per couple (all cycles) · participants with unexplained subfertility Intra‐uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility (2020) · Cochrane | OR 1.69 [1.14, 2.53] | 6 studies · 517 participants | Low |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Live birth rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Live birth rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.21 [0.76, 1.95] | 1 study · 165 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Surgical complication rate ‐ wound infection · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Surgical complication rate ‐ pelvic infection · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Clinical pregnancy rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Miscarriage rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Ectopic pregnancy rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Live birth rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Surgical complication rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 160 participants | Ungraded |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Clinical pregnancy rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.69 [0.44, 1.07] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Surgical complication rate ‐ conversion to laparotomy · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Miscarriage rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | Peto OR 1 [0.2, 5.08] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low |
Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid vs laparoscopic salpingectomy Ectopic pregnancy rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | Peto OR 7.39 [0.15, 372.38] | 1 study · 160 participants | Very low |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Salpingectomy (all methods) · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | Peto OR 5.8 [0.11, 303.69] | 1 study · 204 participants | Very low |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Surgical complication rate ‐ pelvic infection · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 176 participants | Ungraded |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Clinical pregnancy rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Tubal occlusion (all methods) · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | RR 3.21 [1.72, 5.99] | 2 studies · 209 participants | Low |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Miscarriage rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Tubal surgery vs no surgery Ectopic pregnancy rate · tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
LNG‐IUS vs any other medical treatment Bleeding · heavy menstrual bleeding Progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 170 participants | Low |
LNG‐IUS vs endometrial ablation Quality of life · heavy menstrual bleeding Progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 33 participants | Very low |
LNG‐IUS vs endometrial ablation Adverse events · heavy menstrual bleeding Progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding (2020) · Cochrane | RR 2.06 [1.44, 2.94] | 3 studies · 201 participants | Moderate |
LNG‐IUS vs endometrial ablation Treatment failure · heavy menstrual bleeding Progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.78 [1.09, 2.9] | 5 studies · 320 participants | Low |
LNG‐IUS vs endometrial ablation Cost · heavy menstrual bleeding Progestogen‐releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |