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

191 questions in 16 reviews · Sexually Transmitted Infections

current versions

No studies 38 · 19.9%Ungraded 4 · 2.1%Very low 53 · 27.7%Low 68 · 35.6%Moderate 19 · 9.9%High 9 · 4.7%

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
Any antibiotic treatment vs placebo Symptomatic improvement · sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis (2016) · Cochrane	RR 0.93 [0.84, 1.03]	2 studies · 444 participants	High
Any antibiotic treatment vs placebo Symptomatic improvement · sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis (2016) · Cochrane	RR 1.03 [0.9, 1.17]	2 studies · 296 participants	High
Any antibiotic treatment vs placebo Minor adverse events in sexual partner · sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis (2016) · Cochrane	RR 2.55 [1.55, 4.18]	3 studies · 477 participants	Low
Any antibiotic treatment vs no intervention Recurrence · sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis (2016) · Cochrane	RR 1.71 [0.65, 4.55]	1 study · 51 participants	Very low
Any antibiotic treatment vs no intervention Clinical improvement · sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis Antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women with bacterial vaginosis (2016) · Cochrane	RR 0.93 [0.7, 1.25]	2 studies · 152 participants	Very low
Home‐based vs clinic‐based specimen collection Index case management (6 to 12 weeks of · Sexually active people Home‐based versus clinic‐based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria… (2015) · Cochrane	RR 0.88 [0.6, 1.29]	3 studies · 1566 participants	Moderate
Home‐based vs clinic‐based specimen collection Proportion of individuals tested (12 days to 8 weeks of · Sexually active people Home‐based versus clinic‐based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria… (2015) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	10 studies · 10479 participants	Low
Home‐based vs clinic‐based specimen collection Positive test prevalence · Sexually active people Home‐based versus clinic‐based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria… (2015) · Cochrane	RR 0.72 [0.61, 0.86]	9 studies · 3041 participants	Moderate
Home‐based vs clinic‐based specimen collection Adverse effects of testingc · Sexually active people Home‐based versus clinic‐based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria… (2015) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Imiquimod vs placebo Complete clearance · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 4.03 [2.03, 7.99]	6 studies · 1294 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other patient‐applied treatment Recurrence during · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.49 [0.21, 1.11]	1 study · 30 participants	Low
Imiquimod vs any other patient‐applied treatment Any local reactions during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 1.24 [1, 1.54]	2 studies · 105 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other patient‐applied treatment Any systemic reactions during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.3 [0.09, 0.98]	1 study · 60 participants	Low
Imiquimod vs any other provider‐administered treatment Complete clearance · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.84 [0.56, 1.28]	2 studies · 335 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other provider‐administered treatment Recurrence during · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.24 [0.1, 0.56]	1 study · 192 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other provider‐administered treatment Recurrence during · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.71 [0.4, 1.25]	1 study · 53 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other provider‐administered treatment Pain during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.3 [0.17, 0.54]	1 study · 80 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other provider‐administered treatment Any local reactions during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.55 [0.4, 0.74]	1 study · 80 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs placebo Partial clearance · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 2.57 [2.05, 3.21]	6 studies · 1082 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs placebo Recurrence during · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 2.76 [0.7, 10.91]	4 studies · 286 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs placebo Appearance of new warts during treatment · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.76 [0.58, 1]	3 studies · 671 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs placebo Any local reactions during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 1.73 [1.18, 2.53]	5 studies · 1225 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs placebo Any systemic reactions during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.91 [0.63, 1.32]	2 studies · 313 participants	Low
Imiquimod vs placebo Pain during therapy · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 11.84 [3.36, 41.63]	2 studies · 804 participants	Low
Imiquimod vs any other patient‐applied treatment Complete clearance · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 1.09 [0.8, 1.48]	2 studies · 105 participants	Very low
Imiquimod vs any other patient‐applied treatment Partial clearance · AGW in non‐immunocompromised adults Imiquimod for anogenital warts in non‐immunocompromised adults (2014) · Cochrane	RR 0.77 [0.4, 1.47]	1 study · 60 participants	Low
Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patient ‐ home sampling vs. simple patient referral Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 2.14 [0.91, 5.05]	1 study · 220 participants	Low
Expedited partner therapy vs enhanced patient referral EPT vs. enhanced patient referral ‐ re‐infection in index patients Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.96 [0.6, 1.53]	3 studies · 1220 participants	Low
Contract referral vs expedited partner therapy Re‐infection in index patient Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 2 [0.7, 5.72]	1 study · 322 participants	Low
Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patient ‐ information booklet vs. simple patient referral Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.55 [0.22, 1.33]	2 studies · 942 participants	Low
Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patient ‐ patient referral (DIS/health advisor) vs. patient referral (nurse) Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.35 [0.01, 8.51]	1 study · 140 participants	Low
Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patient ‐ disease‐specific website vs. simple referral Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 3.12 [0.17, 58.73]	1 study · 105 participants	Low
Enhanced patient referral vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patient ‐ additional counselling vs. simple patient referral Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.49 [0.27, 0.89]	1 study · 600 participants	Moderate
Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patients Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.71 [0.56, 0.89]	6 studies · 6018 participants	Moderate
Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patients ‐ chlamydia Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.9 [0.6, 1.35]	2 studies · 2007 participants	Moderate
Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patients ‐ trichomonas Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.67 [0.34, 1.28]	2 studies · 631 participants	Low
Expedited partner therapy vs simple patient referral Re‐infection in index patients ‐ chlamydia or gonorrhoea Strategies for partner notification for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV (2013) · Cochrane	RR 0.61 [0.39, 0.94]	2 studies · 3380 participants	Low
Azithromycin (single‐ or two‐dose) vs penicillin HIV seroconversion ‐ penicillin vs single‐dose azithromycin · patients with syphilis Genital ulcer disease treatment for reducing sexual acquisition of HIV (2012) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 19 participants	Very low
Azithromycin (single‐ or two‐dose) vs penicillin HIV seroconversion ‐ penicillin vs two‐dose azithromycin · patients with syphilis Genital ulcer disease treatment for reducing sexual acquisition of HIV (2012) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 22 participants	Very low
Fleroxacin 200 mg or TMP‐SMZ vs fleroxacin 400 mg HIV seroconversion ‐ fleroxacin 400 mg vs fleroxacin 200 mg · patients with chancroid Genital ulcer disease treatment for reducing sexual acquisition of HIV (2012) · Cochrane	RR 3 [0.29, 30.69]	1 study · 45 participants	Very low
Fleroxacin 200 mg or TMP‐SMZ vs fleroxacin 400 mg HIV seroconversion ‐ fleroxacin 400 mg vs TMP‐SMZ · patients with chancroid Genital ulcer disease treatment for reducing sexual acquisition of HIV (2012) · Cochrane	RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.09]	1 study · 98 participants	Very low