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.
2,395 questions in 172 reviews · Gut
current versionsNo studies 420 · 17.5%Ungraded 60 · 2.5%Very low 821 · 34.3%Low 602 · 25.1%Moderate 397 · 16.6%High 95 · 4%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques Post‐ERCP pancreatitis · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.98 [1.14, 3.42] | 7 studies · 577 participants | Low |
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques CBD cannulation success with the randomised technique (before the use of rescue techniques) · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.04 [0.87, 1.24] | 7 studies · 577 participants | Low |
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques Overall cannulation success · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.04 [0.91, 1.18] | 7 studies · 577 participants | Low |
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques Post‐ERCP bleeding · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.48 [0.13, 1.79] | 6 studies · 513 participants | Low |
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques Post‐ERCP perforation · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.94 [0.06, 14.78] | 6 studies · 513 participants | Low |
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques Post‐ERCP cholangitis · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 2.71 [0.79, 9.35] | 4 studies · 373 participants | Low |
Pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) or double guidewire technique (DGT) vs other endoscopic techniques Mortality · people with biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐ERCP pancreatitis Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde… (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.31 [0.01, 7.58] | 2 studies · 258 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Number of participants with improved complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) of greater than three times per week at two‐month · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.07 [0.74, 1.53] | 1 study · 42 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Number of participants with improved colonic transit · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | RR 5 [0.79, 31.63] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Colonic transit rate (geometric centre of radioactive substance). Unit indicates position along with intestinal tract. Scale from: 1 (small intestine) to 5 (rectosigmoid area). · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 30 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Number of participants with improved symptoms related to soiling · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | RR 2.08 [0.86, 5] | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Number of participants with improved quality of life · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | RR 4 [0.56, 28.4] | 1 study · 16 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Self‐perceived QoL (change from baseline) measured using Peds QL 4.0 Generic Core Scales, scoring 0‐100 points, higher score indicates better quality of life) · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 33 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Parent‐perceived QoL (change from baseline) measured using PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales, scoring 0‐100 points, higher score indicates better quality of life) · children with chronic constipation Transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) for treatment of constipation in children (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 33 participants | Very low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Short‐term mortality · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | RR 2.79 [0.44, 17.73] | 7 studies · 868 participants | Very low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Serious adverse events (proportion) · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | RR 5.57 [0.68, 45.89] | 2 studies · 341 participants | Very low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Serious adverse events (number) · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.72 [0.45, 1.13] | 7 studies · 859 participants | Very low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Health‐related quality of life (until 3 months) · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 373 participants | Very low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Mild adverse events (proportion) · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.58 [0.39, 0.85] | 4 studies · 525 participants | Low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Mild adverse events (number) · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.52 [0.39, 0.7] | 9 studies · 1014 participants | Low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Length of hospital stay · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 1014 participants | Low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Readmissions · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.4 [0.69, 2.87] | 7 studies · 733 participants | Very low |
Enhanced recovery protocol vs standard care Costs · people with major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 282 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Short‐term mortality · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Organ failure · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Adverse events (number) · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 1.01 [0.63, 1.62] | 1 study · 21 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 0.41 [0.25, 0.68] | 1 study · 88 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 11.7 [1.52, 89.87] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | OR 1.9 [0.73, 4.94] | 3 studies · 80 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | OR 0.65 [0.32, 1.34] | 2 studies · 160 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Delayed open necrosectomy vs. early open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | OR 0.29 [0.06, 1.38] | 1 study · 36 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | OR 4.5 [0.41, 49.08] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach: planned surgery vs. continued percutaneous drainage · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | OR 21 [0.64, 689.99] | 1 study · 8 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | OR 0.38 [0.14, 1.01] | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Peritoneal lavage vs. open necrosectomy · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 1.28 [0.92, 1.78] | 2 studies · 56 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Minimally invasive step‐up approach: video‐assisted vs. endoscopic · people with necrotising pancreatitis Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis (2016) · Cochrane | Rate ratio 12.55 [0.72, 219.54] | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Short‐term mortality · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.6 [0.5, 5.1] | 11 studies · 2335 participants | Low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Long‐term mortality (maximal · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | HR 0.94 [0.7, 1.25] | 3 studies · 195 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Proportion with a serious adverse event (< 3 months) · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.6 [0.27, 1.34] | 8 studies · 432 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Long‐term recurrence (maximal · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | HR 0.95 [0.7, 1.3] | 4 studies · 162 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Proportion with an adverse event (< 3 months) · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.78 [0.6, 1.01] | 11 studies · 2490 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Quantity of perioperative blood transfused · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 143 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Length of hospital stay · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 319 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic gastrectomy vs open gastrectomy Number of lymph nodes harvested · patients with gastric cancer Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 472 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic vs open transhiatal oesophagectomy Short‐term mortality (in hospital or within 3 months) · patients with oesophageal cancer Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.44 [0.05, 4.09] | 5 studies · 326 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic vs open transhiatal oesophagectomy Length of hospital stay · patients with oesophageal cancer Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 266 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic vs open transhiatal oesophagectomy Positive resection margins · patients with oesophageal cancer Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.65 [0.37, 1.12] | 3 studies · 213 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic vs open transhiatal oesophagectomy Number of harvested lymph nodes · patients with oesophageal cancer Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer (2016) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 326 participants | Very low |
Laparoscopic vs open transhiatal oesophagectomy Long‐term mortality · patients with oesophageal cancer Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer (2016) · Cochrane | HR 0.97 [0.81, 1.16] | 2 studies · 193 participants | Very low |