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.
1,000 questions in 69 reviews · Urology
current versionsNo studies 196 · 19.6%Ungraded 33 · 3.3%Very low 198 · 19.8%Low 354 · 35.4%Moderate 206 · 20.6%High 13 · 1.3%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Posterior reconstruction vs no posterior reconstruction Serious adverse events · men (ages > 18 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of… (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.75 [0.29, 1.92] | 5 studies · 835 participants | Moderate |
Posterior reconstruction vs no posterior reconstruction Urinary continence 6 months after surgery MCID: 5% absolute difference · men (ages > 18 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of… (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.01 [0.97, 1.05] | 5 studies · 741 participants | Moderate |
Posterior reconstruction vs no posterior reconstruction Urinary continence 12 months after surgery MCID: 5% absolute difference · men (ages > 18 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of… (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.02 [0.98, 1.07] | 3 studies · 602 participants | Low |
Posterior reconstruction vs no posterior reconstruction Potency recovery 12 months after surgery MCID: 5% absolute difference · men (ages > 18 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of… (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.02 [0.82, 1.26] | 2 studies · 308 participants | Very low |
Posterior reconstruction vs no posterior reconstruction Positive surgical margins MCID: 5% absolute difference · men (ages > 18 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of… (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.24 [0.65, 2.33] | 3 studies · 517 participants | Low |
Blue light vs white light Time to disease recurrence (absolute event rates based on 12 months · people with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer Blue versus white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane | HR 0.66 [0.54, 0.81] | 15 studies · 2994 participants | Low |
Blue light vs white light Time to disease progression (absolute event rates based on 12 months · people with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer Blue versus white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane | HR 0.65 [0.5, 0.84] | 9 studies · 2200 participants | Low |
Blue light vs white light Surgical complications, serious (up to 90 days; MCID 2%) · people with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer Blue versus white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.54 [0.14, 2.14] | 1 study · 525 participants | Low |
Blue light vs white light Time to death from bladder cancer (absolute event rates based on 60 months · people with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer Blue versus white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane | HR 0.55 [0.19, 1.61] | 1 study · 407 participants | Low |
Blue light vs white light Any adverse events (up to 90 days; MCID 5%) · people with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer Blue versus white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.09 [0.88, 1.33] | 3 studies · 1375 participants | Low |
Blue light vs white light Surgical complications, non‐serious (up to 90 days; MCID 5%) · people with non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer Blue versus white light for transurethral resection of non‐muscle invasive bladder cancer (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Increased water intake vs standard water intake Stone recurrence (assessed as symptomatic renal colic/stone expulsion episodes and imaging) · participants with a prior history of nephrolithiasis Water for preventing urinary stones (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.45 [0.24, 0.84] | 1 study · 199 participants | Low |
Increased water intake vs standard water intake Time to recurrence (absolute event rate based on 5‐year · participants with a prior history of nephrolithiasis Water for preventing urinary stones (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.4 [0.2, 0.79] | 1 study · 199 participants | Low |
Increased water intake vs standard water intake Adverse events · participants with a prior history of nephrolithiasis Water for preventing urinary stones (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Time to death from any causeMedian · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.79 [0.7, 0.9] | 3 studies · 1537 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Time to disease progressionMedian · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.39 [0.27, 0.56] | 1 study · 1098 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Incidence of metastatic diseaseMedian · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.39 [0.21, 0.73] | 1 study · 1098 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Health‐related quality of life · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 856 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Urinary function · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 782 participants | Low |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Sexual function · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 756 participants | Low |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Time to death from prostate cancerMedian · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.57 [0.44, 0.73] | 2 studies · 1426 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Time to disease progressionMedian · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.43 [0.35, 0.54] | 2 studies · 1426 participants | Low |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Time to metastatic diseaseMedian · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.56 [0.46, 0.7] | 2 studies · 1426 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Quality of life · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1 [0.85, 1.16] | 1 study · 339 participants | Low |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Urinary function: incontinence · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | RR 3.97 [2.34, 6.74] | 1 study · 731 participants | Low |
Radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting Sexual function: erectile dysfunction · men with localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | RR 2.67 [1.63, 4.38] | 1 study · 731 participants | Low |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Time to death from any causeMedian · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.93 [0.65, 1.33] | 1 study · 1098 participants | Moderate |
Radical prostatectomy vs active monitoring Time to death from prostate cancerMedian · localised prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.63 [0.21, 1.89] | 1 study · 1098 participants | Moderate |
Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) vs mitomycin C (MMC) Time to death from any cause (absolute effect size estimates based on event rate at 5 years). Intravesical Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin versus mitomycin C for Ta and T1 bladder cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.97 [0.79, 1.2] | 5 studies · 1132 participants | Low |
Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) vs mitomycin C (MMC) Serious adverse effects Intravesical Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin versus mitomycin C for Ta and T1 bladder cancer (2020) · Cochrane | RR 2.31 [0.82, 6.52] | 5 studies · 1024 participants | Low |
Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) vs mitomycin C (MMC) Time to recurrence (absolute effect size estimates based on event rate at 5 years) Intravesical Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin versus mitomycin C for Ta and T1 bladder cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.88 [0.71, 1.09] | 11 studies · 2616 participants | Low |
Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) vs mitomycin C (MMC) Time to progression (absolute effect size estimates based on event rates at 5 years) Intravesical Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin versus mitomycin C for Ta and T1 bladder cancer (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.96 [0.73, 1.26] | 6 studies · 1622 participants | Low |
Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin (BCG) vs mitomycin C (MMC) Quality of life (measured using EORTC QLQ‐BLS24 at baseline and after each installation weekly for 6 weeks) Intravesical Bacillus Calmette‐Guérin versus mitomycin C for Ta and T1 bladder cancer (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 110 participants | Ungraded |
Sorafenib vs sunitinib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Progression‐free survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 10 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 1.19 [0.92, 1.53] | 1 study · 365 participants | Low |
Tivozanib vs sorafenib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Overall survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 24 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 1.25 [0.95, 1.64] | 1 study · 517 participants | Low |
Tivozanib vs sorafenib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Serious adverse events (Grade 3 or 4) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.85 [0.74, 0.97] | 1 study · 516 participants | Low |
Tivozanib vs sorafenib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Health‐related quality of life · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 506 participants | Low |
Sorafenib vs pazopanib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Progression‐free survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 12 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 1.92 [1.74, 2.11] | 1 study · 377 participants | Moderate |
Sorafenib vs pazopanib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Overall survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 24 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 1.22 [0.91, 1.64] | 1 study · 377 participants | Low |
Sorafenib vs pazopanib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Serious adverse events (Grade 3 or 4) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | RR 0.92 [0.78, 1.09] | 1 study · 366 participants | Very low |
Sorafenib vs pazopanib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Health‐related quality of life(mean change value) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 267 participants | Low |
Sunitinib vs everolimus (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Progression‐free survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 12 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.71 [0.59, 0.87] | 1 study · 471 participants | Moderate |
Sunitinib vs everolimus (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Overall survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 24 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.9 [0.72, 1.11] | 1 study · 471 participants | Low |
Sunitinib vs everolimus (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Serious adverse events (Grade 3 or 4) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.34 [1.14, 1.59] | 1 study · 469 participants | Moderate |
Sorafenib vs sunitinib (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Overall survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 24 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 0.99 [0.74, 1.33] | 1 study · 365 participants | Very low |
Sunitinib vs everolimus (targeted agent versus targeted agent) Health‐related quality of life · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (any cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 288 participants | Low |
Sunitinib vs avelumab + axitinib (targeted agent versus immunotherapy + targeted agent) Progression‐free survival(absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 12 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 1.45 [1.17, 1.8] | 1 study · 886 participants | Moderate |
Sunitinib vs avelumab + axitinib (targeted agent versus immunotherapy + targeted agent) Overall survival (absolute effect size estimates based on survival rate at 12 months) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | HR 1.28 [0.92, 1.79] | 1 study · 886 participants | Low |
Sunitinib vs avelumab + axitinib (targeted agent versus immunotherapy + targeted agent) Serious adverse events (Grade 3 or 4) · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | RR 1.01 [0.93, 1.1] | 1 study · 873 participants | Low |
Sunitinib vs avelumab + axitinib (targeted agent versus immunotherapy + targeted agent) Health‐related quality of life4 · Treatment‐naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (clear cell type) Targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |