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.

Limit to evidence status or GRADE (optional)

1,463 questions in 125 reviews · Anaesthesia

current versions
No 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.

QuestionEffectEvidenceStatus / 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 extracted8 studies · 499 participantsModerate
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 extractedNRNo 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 extracted3 studies · 162 participantsLow
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 extracted5 studies · 257 participantsLow
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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 extracted1 study · 70 participantsLow
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 participantsVery 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 extracted10 studies · 835 participantsModerate
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 participantsModerate
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 participantsLow
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 participantsModerate
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 participantsLow
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 extractedNRNo 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 extractedNRNo 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 extractedNRNo 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 extracted2 studies · 114 participantsLow
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 extractedNRNo 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 extractedNRNo 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 extractedNRNo 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 participantsModerate
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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 extracted22 studies · 1138 participantsHigh
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 extracted28 studies · 1559 participantsLow
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 extracted35 studies · 2731 participantsModerate
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 participantsLow
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 participantsLow
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 extracted30 studies · 2598 participantsVery 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 participantsVery 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 extracted2 studies · 175 participantsLow
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 extracted1 study · 114 participantsLow
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 extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
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 participantsLow
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 participantsLow
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 participantsLow
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 extracted1 study · 60 participantsLow
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 extracted1 study · 60 participantsModerate
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 extractedNRNo 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 extracted0 studies · 0 participantsUngraded
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 extracted2 studies · 203 participantsLow
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 participantsLow