evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

4,756 questions · 11,779 findings · 747 reviews · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 3,205 · 27.2%GRADE not reported 628 · 5.3%Very low 3,261 · 27.7%Low 2,913 · 24.7%Moderate 1,453 · 12.3%High 319 · 2.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Exacerbations: number of people experiencing moderate or severe exacerbations · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal… showed no clear difference in number of participants with moderate/severe acute exacerbations… compared with nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Lung function: FEV1 mL (change from baseline) · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD
1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Use of "rescue" medications and emergency action plans: B2 use puffs per day Duration of treatment: range 14 weeks to 24 weeks · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD
1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Healthcare utilisation ‐ not measured · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Visual acuity · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in short‐term visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/60 at end of… compared with control (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Final visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/50; monocular vs binocular eye patching · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in final visual acuity between 20/20 and 20/50; monocular vs binocular… compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Risk of secondary hemorrhage; monocular versus binocular eye patching · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in risk of secondary hemorrhage; monocular vs binocular eye patching compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions vs control

Risk of secondary hemorrhage; ambulatory treatment versus bed rest · people with traumatic hyphema

Non‐pharmaceutical interventions showed no clear difference in risk of secondary hemorrhage; ambulatory treatment vs bed rest compared with control (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Exercise vs usual care with or without sham interventions

Functional ability: new incidence of delirium during hospitalisation · acutely hospitalised medical patients

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Exercise interventions changes functional ability: new incidence of delirium during hospitalisation compared with usual care with or without sham interventions (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Exercise vs usual care with or without sham interventions

Medical deterioration during hospitalisation · acutely hospitalised medical patients

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings table ‐ Exercise interventions changes medical deterioration during hospitalisation compared with usual care with or without sham interventions (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review