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.
1,463 questions in 125 reviews · Anaesthesia
current versionsNo studies 197 · 13.5%Ungraded 203 · 13.9%Very low 307 · 21%Low 441 · 30.1%Moderate 245 · 16.7%High 70 · 4.8%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Intravenous dexamethasone vs placebo Duration of sensory block (we included all studies describing duration of sensory block regardless of how it was described) · participants undergoing surgery with peripheral nerve block Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 499 participants | Moderate |
Intravenous dexamethasone vs placebo Incidence of serious adverse events (we used the NIH definition of adverse events. A serious event includes death, a life‐threatening event that requires hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization, disability or congenital anomaly) · participants undergoing surgery with peripheral nerve block Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intravenous dexamethasone vs placebo Postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours (measured using pain scores on an 11‐point VAS) · participants undergoing surgery with peripheral nerve block Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 162 participants | Low |
Intravenous dexamethasone vs placebo Postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours (measured using pain scores on an 11‐point VAS) · participants undergoing surgery with peripheral nerve block Dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 257 participants | Low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Postextubation stridor (defined as any inspiratory sound or persistent barking, or presence of sternal or intercostal retractions postextubation) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.93 [0.65, 1.33] | 2 studies · 2734 participants | Very low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Need for ETT exchange (defined as more than one attempt to arrive at the final endotracheal tube size) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.07 [0.05, 0.1] | 2 studies · 2734 participants | Very low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Need for tracheal re‐intubation for postoperative stridor (defined as the need to re‐intubate to assure oxygenation to deal with postextubation stridor) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.85 [0.17, 19.76] | 2 studies · 115 participants | Very low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Need for epinephrine to treat stridor (defined as the need to use epinephrine to treat postextubation stridor) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.7 [0.38, 1.28] | 2 studies · 115 participants | Very low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission to treat post extubation stridor (as defined by the trial authors) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | RR 2.77 [0.3, 25.78] | 1 study · 102 participants | Very low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Cost of medical gas (described in the study by the hospital expenses for medical gases per participant in Euros) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low |
Cuffed vs uncuffed tubes Need for corticosteroid to treat stridor (defined as the need to use corticosteroid to treat postextubation stridor) · Children up to eight years undergoing general anaesthesia Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for general anaesthesia in children aged eight years and under (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.87 [0.51, 1.49] | 1 study · 102 participants | Very low |
Sugammadex 2.0 mg/kg vs neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg Recovery timea from second twitch (T2) to train‐of‐four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9 (moderate block) · adult patients, ASA I to IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 835 participants | Moderate |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) Bradycardia · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.16 [0.07, 0.34] | 11 studies · 1218 participants | Moderate |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) PONV · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.52 [0.28, 0.97] | 6 studies · 389 participants | Low |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) Overall signs of postoperative residual paralysis · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.4 [0.28, 0.57] | 15 studies · 1474 participants | Moderate |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) Risk of serious adverse eventsb · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.54 [0.13, 2.25] | 10 studies · 959 participants | Low |
Sugammadex 2.0 mg/kg vs neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg Recovery timea from post‐tetanic count (PTC) · adult patients, ASA I to IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sugammadex 2.0 mg/kg vs neostigmine 0.05 mg/kg Risks of adverse events and serious adverse eventsb, bradycardia, PONV, and signs of residual neuromuscular blockade · adult patients, ASA I to IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sugammadex 4.0 mg/kg vs neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg Recovery timea from second twitch (T2) to train‐of‐four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9 (moderate block) · adult patients, ASA I to IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sugammadex 4.0 mg/kg vs neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg Recovery timea from post‐tetanic count (PTC 1 to 5) to train‐of‐four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9 (deep block) · adult patients, ASA I to IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 114 participants | Low |
Sugammadex 4.0 mg/kg vs neostigmine 0.07 mg/kg Risk of adverse events and serious adverse eventsb, bradycardia, PONV, and signs of residual neuromuscular blockade · adult patients, ASA I to IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) Recovery timea from second twitch (T2) to train‐of‐four ratio (TOFR) > 0.9 (moderate block) · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) Recovery timea from post‐tetanic count (PTC) · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sugammadex (any dose) vs neostigmine (any dose) Risk of composite adverse eventsb · Adult patients, ASA I‐IV, who received non‐depolarizing NMBAs Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.6 [0.49, 0.74] | 28 studies · 2298 participants | Moderate |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Mortality · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.78 [0.57, 1.06] | 11 studies · 2152 participants | Very low |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Pneumonia · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.77 [0.45, 1.31] | 6 studies · 761 participants | Very low |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Myocardial infarction · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.89 [0.22, 3.65] | 4 studies · 559 participants | Very low |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Cerebrovascular accident · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.48 [0.46, 4.83] | 6 studies · 729 participants | Very low |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Acute confusional state · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.85 [0.51, 1.4] | 6 studies · 624 participants | Very low |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Deep vein thrombosis · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.57 [0.41, 0.78] | 2 studies · 116 participants | Very low |
Neuraxial block vs general anaesthesia Return of patient to their own home · Patients with hip fracture repair Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.84 [0.61, 1.16] | 1 study · 130 participants | Very low |
Epidural local anaesthetic vs opioid‐based regimen Time required to observe first flatus · adults Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid‐based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal… (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 22 studies · 1138 participants | High |
Epidural local anaesthetic vs opioid‐based regimen Time required to observe first faeces · adults Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid‐based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal… (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 28 studies · 1559 participants | Low |
Epidural local anaesthetic vs opioid‐based regimen VAS scores on movement at 24 hours · adults Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid‐based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal… (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 35 studies · 2731 participants | Moderate |
Epidural local anaesthetic vs opioid‐based regimen Vomiting during first 24 hours · adults Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid‐based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.84 [0.57, 1.23] | 22 studies · 1154 participants | Low |
Epidural local anaesthetic vs opioid‐based regimen Anastomotic leak · adults Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid‐based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.74 [0.41, 1.32] | 17 studies · 848 participants | Low |
Epidural local anaesthetic vs opioid‐based regimen Length of hospital stay · adults Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid‐based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal… (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 30 studies · 2598 participants | Very low |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs protocol using standard measures such All‐cause mortality Advanced haemodynamic monitoring · patients with proximal femoral fracture Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.41 [0.14, 1.2] | 3 studies · 280 participants | Very low |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care Medically fit for discharge · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 175 participants | Low |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care Return to pre‐fracture accommodation/return to pre‐fracture mobility · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 114 participants | Low |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care Adverse outcomes ‐ cardiopulmonary · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care Adverse outcomes ‐ neurological · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.1 [0.56, 2.18] | 2 studies · 173 participants | Low |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs usual care Adverse outcomes ‐ all · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.78 [0.57, 1.05] | 2 studies · 173 participants | Low |
Protocol using standard measures such as CVP vs usual care All‐cause mortality · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | RR 2.81 [0.61, 12.81] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low |
Protocol using standard measures such as CVP vs usual care Total length of hospital stay · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low |
Protocol using standard measures such as CVP vs usual care Medically fit for discharge · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Moderate |
Protocol using standard measures such as CVP vs usual care Return to pre‐fracture accommodation/return to pre‐fracture mobility · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Protocol using standard measures such as CVP vs usual care Adverse outcomes ‐ cardiopulmonary · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Advanced haemodynamic monitoring vs protocol using standard measures such Total length of hospital stay · patients with proximal femoral fracture Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 203 participants | Low |
Protocol using standard measures such as CVP vs usual care Adverse outcomes ‐ neurological · patients with perioperative fluid optimization Perioperative fluid volume optimization following proximal femoral fracture (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.94 [0.06, 14.27] | 1 study · 60 participants | Low |