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

1,645 questions in 107 reviews · Wounds

current versions

No studies 651 · 39.6%Ungraded 84 · 5.1%Very low 554 · 33.7%Low 283 · 17.2%Moderate 64 · 3.9%High 9 · 0.5%

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
Honey vs topical antibiotics Adverse events: honey versus SSD · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.2 [0.01, 3.97]	3 studies · 250 participants	Very low
Aloe vera vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (number of healing events): Aloe Vera versus SSD · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.41 [0.7, 2.85]	1 study · 38 participants	Low
Aloe vera vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (mean time to healing): Aloe Vera versus SSD or framycetin · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 210 participants	Very low
Aloe vera vs topical antibiotics Infection: Aloe Vera versus SSD · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.93 [0.26, 3.34]	3 studies · 221 participants	Very low
Aloe vera vs topical antibiotics Adverse events · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Iodine vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (mean time to healing) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 148 participants	Very low
Iodine vs topical antibiotics Infection · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Iodine vs topical antibiotics Adverse events · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.86 [0.35, 2.1]	1 study · 40 participants	Very low
Silver vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (number of healing events): silver xenograft vs petroleum gauze · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.13 [0.59, 2.16]	1 study · 32 participants	Low
Silver‐based antiseptics vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (mean time to healing) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	10 studies · 1085 participants	Low
Silver vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (mean time to healing): silver nanoparticle vs Vaseline gauze · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 204 participants	Moderate
Silver vs non‐antibacterial Infection · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Silver vs non‐antibacterial Adverse events · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Honey vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing: time to complete healing (time‐to‐event data) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	HR 2.86 [1.6, 5.11]	2 studies · 164 participants	Moderate
Honey vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (mean time to healing) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 1156 participants	High
Honey vs non‐antibacterial Infection (incident) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.47 [0.23, 0.98]	1 study · 92 participants	Very low
Honey vs non‐antibacterial Infection (persistent) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.15 [0.06, 0.4]	2 studies · 147 participants	Very low
Honey vs non‐antibacterial Adverse events · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	3 studies · 239 participants	Very low
Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing: time to complete healing (time‐to‐event data): chlorhexidine versus polyurethane · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	HR 0.71 [0.39, 1.29]	1 study · 51 participants	Low
Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (mean time to healing): chlorhexidine versus non‐antibacterial · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	MD 4.08 [0.73, 7.43]	1 study · 51 participants	Low
Silver‐based antiseptics vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (number of healing events) · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.17 [1, 1.37]	5 studies · 408 participants	Low
Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial Infection: chlorhexidine versus no antimicrobial/no additional antimicrobial · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.11 [0.54, 2.27]	2 studies · 172 participants	Very low
Chlorhexidine vs non‐antibacterial Adverse events: chlorhexidine versus hydrocolloid · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.2 [0.02, 1.65]	1 study · 98 participants	Very low
Iodine vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (number of healing events): iodophor versus hydrogel · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.17 [0.08, 0.34]	1 study · 120 participants	Low
Iodine vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (mean time to healing): iodine gauze versus carbon fibre · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	MD 5.38 [3.09, 7.67]	1 study · 277 participants	Very low
Iodine vs non‐antibacterial Wound healing (mean time to healing): iodophor versus MEBO · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 55 participants	Very low
Iodine vs non‐antibacterial Infection: iodine gauze versus MEBO · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.3 [0.47, 3.61]	1 study · 211 participants	Low
Iodine vs non‐antibacterial Adverse effects: iodine gauze versus MEBO · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.71 [0.3, 1.69]	1 study · 211 participants	Low
Silver‐based antiseptics vs topical antibiotics Infection · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.84 [0.48, 1.49]	4 studies · 309 participants	Very low
Silver‐based antiseptics vs topical antibiotics Adverse events · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.86 [0.63, 1.18]	6 studies · 440 participants	Low
Honey vs topical antibiotics Wound healing: time to complete healing (time‐to‐event data): honey versus SSD or mafenide acetate · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	HR 2.45 [1.71, 3.52]	5 studies · 580 participants	Moderate
Honey vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (mean time to healing): honey versus SSD · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	6 studies · 712 participants	Very low
Honey vs topical antibiotics Wound healing (number of healing events): honey versus SSD · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 2.18 [1.15, 4.13]	4 studies · 318 participants	Low
Honey vs topical antibiotics Incident infection: honey versus SSD or mafenide acetate · people with burns Antiseptics for burns (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.16 [0.08, 0.34]	4 studies · 480 participants	Very low
Fibrin glue vs Bascom's procedure Time to healing (days) · adults with pilonidal sinus Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Fibrin glue vs Bascom's procedure Adverse events (seroma or allergic reaction) · adults with pilonidal sinus Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Limberg flap plus fibrin glue vs Limberg flap Time to healing (days) · Men with pilonidal sinus Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 132 participants	Very low
Limberg flap plus fibrin glue vs Limberg flap Adverse event (seroma) · Men with pilonidal sinus Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.27 [0.05, 1.63]	2 studies · 164 participants	Very low
Karydakis flap plus fibrin glue vs Karydakis flap and drain Time to healing (days) · Men with pilonidal sinus Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Karydakis flap plus fibrin glue vs Karydakis flap and drain Adverse event (seroma) · Men with pilonidal sinus Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease (2017) · Cochrane	RR 3 [0.67, 13.46]	1 study · 50 participants	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Contrasts: interventions versus saline gauze · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Hydrogel · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.55 [1.02, 2.36]	NR	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Iodine‐containing dressings · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.08 [0.58, 2.03]	NR	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Phenytoin · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.27 [0.58, 2.8]	NR	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Protease‐modulating dressings · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.65 [0.92, 2.94]	NR	Moderate
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Polyvinylpyrrolidone + zinc oxide · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.31 [0.37, 4.62]	NR	Low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Combination silicone foam dressings · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.93 [0.38, 9.98]	NR	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Soft polymer dressings · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 1.35 [0.55, 3.27]	NR	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Sugar + egg white · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 0.7 [0.03, 15.62]	NR	Very low
NMA evidence for individual network: proportion with complete healing ‐ interventions vs saline gauze Tripeptide copper gel · people with pressure ulcers Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers (2017) · Cochrane	RR 3.9 [1.04, 14.63]	NR	Very low