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

1,248 questions in 108 reviews · Stroke

current versions

No studies 275 · 22%Ungraded 56 · 4.5%Very low 269 · 21.6%Low 349 · 28%Moderate 216 · 17.3%High 83 · 6.7%

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
Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	MD 2.8	1 study · 45 participants	Low
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control Visual field (TAP border position in degrees of visual angle from zero vertical meridian) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	MD 1.02	1 study · 19 participants	Very low
Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control Falls (number of falls) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	OR 1.21 [0.26, 5.76]	1 study · 39 participants	Very low
Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control Quality of life (Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ‐25)) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	MD 8.4	1 study · 43 participants	Low
Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control Scanning ‐ cancellation (line cancellation errors) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	MD 9.8 [1.91, 17.69]	1 study · 39 participants	Very low
Summary of findings: Substitutive interventions vs control Adverse events (number of participants with reported events during intervention period) · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	OR 87.32 [4.87, 1564.66]	1 study · 59 participants	Low
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Functional ability in activities of daily living (FIM) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 37 participants	Very low
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Visual field · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Extended activities of daily living · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Falls · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Quality of life · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control Extended activities of daily living · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Assessment/screening interventions vs control Scanning ‐ cancellation · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control Reading ability · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control Falls · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control Quality of life (improved or not improved ‐ derived from percentage of those who reported subjective improvements of vision) · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	OR 13 [2.07, 81.48]	1 study · 30 participants	Very low
Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control Scanning ‐ cancellation · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control Functional ability in activities of daily living · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Summary of findings: Compensative interventions vs control Visual field (Functional field score and relative change in visual field score, combined) After intervention · stroke survivors with visual field defects Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 95 participants	Very low
Exercise vs control Rate of falls · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	Rate ratio 0.72 [0.54, 0.94]	8 studies · 765 participants	Low
Exercise vs control Number of fallers · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.03 [0.9, 1.19]	10 studies · 969 participants	Very low
Home visits vs control Rate of falls · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	Rate ratio 0.85 [0.43, 1.69]	1 study · 85 participants	Very low
Home visits vs control Number of fallers · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.48 [0.71, 3.09]	1 study · 85 participants	Very low
Single lens distance glasses vs usual (multifocal) glasses Rate of falls · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	Rate ratio 1.08 [0.52, 2.25]	1 study · 43 participants	Very low
Single lens distance glasses vs usual (multifocal) glasses Number of fallers · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	RR 0.74 [0.47, 1.18]	1 study · 43 participants	Very low
Servo‐assistive rollator vs control Rate of falls · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	Rate ratio 0.56 [0.19, 1.66]	1 study · 42 participants	Very low
Servo‐assistive rollator vs control Number of fallers · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	RR 0.44 [0.16, 1.22]	1 study · 42 participants	Very low
Other interventions: tDCS vs sham tDCS Number of fallers · preventing falls in people after stroke Interventions for preventing falls in people after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	RR 0.3 [0.14, 0.63]	1 study · 60 participants	Low
tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) vs sham tDCS plus SLT Functional communication post intervention Formal outcome measures of aphasia. Scale from: −infinity to +infinity · patients with improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 112 participants	Low
tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) vs sham tDCS plus SLT Functional communication at · patients with improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 80 participants	Very low
tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) vs sham tDCS plus SLT Language impairment: accuracy of naming nouns post intervention Accuracy in naming nouns. Scale from: −infinity to +infinity · patients with improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	11 studies · 298 participants	Moderate
tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) vs sham tDCS plus SLT Language impairment: accuracy of naming nouns at · patients with improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 80 participants	Low
tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) vs sham tDCS plus SLT Language impairment: accuracy of naming verbs post intervention Accuracy in verb naming. Scale from: −infinity to +infinity · patients with improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 21 participants	Very low
tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) vs sham tDCS plus SLT tDCS plus speech and language therapy (SLT) versus sham tDCS plus SLT for improving aphasia: dropouts post intervention Numbers of dropouts and adverse events · patients with improving aphasia in patients with aphasia after stroke Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for improving aphasia in adults with aphasia after stroke (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	15 studies · 345 participants	Low
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Death or dependency at end of trial · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	OR 1.05 [0.63, 1.75]	2 studies · 306 participants	Moderate
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Case fatality at end of trial · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	OR 1 [0.66, 1.52]	14 studies · 766 participants	Moderate
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Length of inpatient stay (days) · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	8 studies · 577 participants	Moderate
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Proportion of participants with dysphagia at end of trial · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	OR 0.42 [0.32, 0.55]	23 studies · 1487 participants	Low
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Swallowing ability · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	26 studies · 1173 participants	Very low
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Penetration aspiration score · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	11 studies · 303 participants	Low
Swallowing therapy vs placebo Adverse event: chest infection or pneumonia · dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke Swallowing therapy for dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	OR 0.34 [0.17, 0.71]	10 studies · 676 participants	Very low
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Poor outcome: death or dependence in daily activities (12 months) · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 0.77 [0.67, 0.87]	4 studies · 2429 participants	Moderate
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Poor outcome (death or dependence) (10 years) · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 0.81 [0.7, 0.92]	1 study · 1316 participants	Low
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Death from any cause (12 months) · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 0.8 [0.63, 1.02]	4 studies · 2429 participants	Moderate
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Delayed cerebral ischaemia (2–3 months) · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 0.84 [0.74, 0.96]	4 studies · 2450 participants	Moderate
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Rebleeding postprocedure up to 1 year · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 1.83 [1.04, 3.23]	4 studies · 2458 participants	High
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Rebleeding postprocedure up to 10 years · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 2.69 [1.5, 4.81]	1 study · 1323 participants	Low
Endovascular coiling vs neurosurgical clipping Complications from the intervention · people with subarachnoid haemorrhage from a ruptured intracranial aneurysm Endovascular coiling versus neurosurgical clipping for people with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (2018) · Cochrane	RR 1.05 [0.44, 2.53]	2 studies · 129 participants	Low
Acupuncture vs all control (sham and open) Death or dependency at end of · patients with acute stroke Acupuncture for acute stroke (2018) · Cochrane	OR 0.61 [0.46, 0.79]	11 studies · 1582 participants	Very low