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

612 questions in 46 reviews · Work

current versions

No studies 78 · 12.7%Ungraded 4 · 0.7%Very low 295 · 48.2%Low 182 · 29.7%Moderate 49 · 8%High 4 · 0.7%

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
Educational interventions for preventing lead poisoning in workers (pre‐intervention vs post‐intervention) Aminolevulinic acid levels in urine · workers and foremen Educational interventions for preventing lead poisoning in workers (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Therapeutic interventions vs no intervention Re‐employment Measured as percentage or number of participants who obtained paid employment · Unemployed job seekers Health‐improving interventions for obtaining employment in unemployed job seekers (2020) · Cochrane	RR 1.41 [1.07, 1.87]	8 studies · 1142 participants	Very low
Therapeutic interventions vs no intervention General health · Unemployed job seekers Health‐improving interventions for obtaining employment in unemployed job seekers (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 318 participants	Moderate
Therapeutic interventions vs no intervention Mental health · Unemployed job seekers Health‐improving interventions for obtaining employment in unemployed job seekers (2020) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 530 participants	Low
Combined interventions vs no intervention Re‐employment Measured as percentage or number of participants who obtained paid employment · Unemployed job seekers Health‐improving interventions for obtaining employment in unemployed job seekers (2020) · Cochrane	RR 1.12 [1.06, 1.2]	6 studies · 4101 participants	Moderate
Combined interventions vs no intervention Re‐employment Measured as percentage or number of participants who obtained paid employment · Unemployed job seekers Health‐improving interventions for obtaining employment in unemployed job seekers (2020) · Cochrane	RR 1.18 [0.78, 1.79]	1 study · 66 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs continued exposure Absence of asthma symptoms; · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	RR 4.8 [1.67, 13.86]	9 studies · 641 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs reduction of exposure Improvement of asthma symptoms; · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.11 [0.84, 1.47]	5 studies · 140 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs reduction of exposure Change in FEV1 % predicted: · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	7 studies · 388 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs reduction of exposure Change in NSBH: · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Removal from exposure vs reduction of exposure Being unemployed; · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	RR 14.28 [2.06, 99.16]	2 studies · 64 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs continued exposure Improvement of asthma symptoms; · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	RR 2.47 [1.26, 4.84]	9 studies · 435 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs continued exposure Change in FEV1 % predicted: · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	10 studies · 898 participants	Very low
Removal from exposure vs continued exposure Change in NSBH: · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	6 studies · 387 participants	Very low
Reduction of exposure vs continued exposure Absence of asthma symptoms; · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	RR 2.65 [1.24, 5.68]	7 studies · 334 participants	Very low
Reduction of exposure vs continued exposure Improvement of asthma symptoms · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Reduction of exposure vs continued exposure Change in FEV1 % predicted: · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 224 participants	Very low
Reduction of exposure vs continued exposure Change in NSBH: · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	NR	No studies
Removal from exposure vs reduction of exposure Absence of asthma symptoms; · workers with occupational asthma Workplace interventions for treatment of occupational asthma (2019) · Cochrane	RR 6.05 [0.86, 42.34]	6 studies · 359 participants	Very low
Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care Proportion of participants returning to work in the short term (up to 6 months) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.08 [0.84, 1.4]	6 studies · 375 participants	Very low
Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants at work in the extended long term (≥ 5 years) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.83 [1.26, 2.66]	1 study · 119 participants	Low
Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care Days until return to work · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 430 participants	Low
Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care Adverse effects: cardiac deaths · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1 [0.35, 2.8]	2 studies · 285 participants	Moderate
Combined interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants returning to work in the short term (up to 6 months) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.56 [1.23, 1.98]	4 studies · 395 participants	Low
Combined interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants returning to work in the medium term (6 months ‐ 1 year) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.06 [1, 1.13]	10 studies · 992 participants	Low
Combined interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants at work in the long term (> 1 to < 5 years) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.14 [0.96, 1.37]	6 studies · 491 participants	Very low
Combined interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants at work in the extended long term (≥ 5 years) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]	4 studies · 350 participants	Very low
Combined interventions vs usual care Days until return to work · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 181 participants	Moderate
Combined interventions vs usual care Health‐related quality of life · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 87 participants	Low
Combined interventions vs usual care Adverse effects: reinfarctions · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 0.56 [0.23, 1.43]	3 studies · 265 participants	Moderate
Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care Proportion of participants returning to work in the medium term (6 months ‐ 1 year) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.24 [0.95, 1.63]	7 studies · 316 participants	Very low
Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care Proportion of participants at work in the long term (> 1 to < 5 years) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.09 [0.88, 1.34]	3 studies · 239 participants	Low
Psychological interventions (including health education) vs usual care Days until return to work · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	2 studies · 125 participants	Very low
Work‐directed counselling vs usual care Days until return to work · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	4 studies · 618 participants	Low
Work‐directed counselling vs usual care Adverse effects: cardiac deaths · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1 [0.19, 5.39]	2 studies · 388 participants	Moderate
Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants returning to work in the short term (up to 6 months) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.17 [0.97, 1.41]	4 studies · 460 participants	Very low
Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants returning to work in the medium term (6 months‐1 year) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.09 [0.99, 1.2]	5 studies · 510 participants	Low
Physical conditioning interventions vs usual care Proportion of participants at work in the long term (> 1 to < 5 years) · people with coronary heart disease Interventions to support return to work for people with coronary heart disease (2019) · Cochrane	RR 1.04 [0.82, 1.3]	2 studies · 156 participants	Low
Training vs no intervention Stress Lower score better Short‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	157 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Mid‐term CBA Off the job/interaction training Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	744 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Mid‐term CBA On the job/environment training Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	129 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Long‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	547 participants	Low
Training vs placebo Stress Lower score better; Mid‐term; cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	357 participants	Low
Training vs placebo Absenteeism Lower score better; Mid‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	174 participants	Low
Training vs placebo Well‐being Higher score better; Mid‐term CBA Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	1 study · 57 participants	Very low
Training vs other training Stress Lower score better; Long‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	98 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Stress Lower score better Mid‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	304 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Stress Lower score better Mid‐term CBA Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	368 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Stress Lower score better Long‐term CBA Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	145 participants	Very low
Training vs no intervention Absenteeism Lower score better Mid‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane	no estimate extracted	164 participants	Very low