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.
759 questions in 57 reviews · Colorectal
current versionsNo studies 91 · 12%Ungraded 12 · 1.6%Very low 209 · 27.5%Low 229 · 30.2%Moderate 160 · 21.1%High 58 · 7.6%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs no training Patient discomfort · health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs no training Overall global rating of performance or competency · health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs no training Visualisation of mucosa · health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs conventional patient‐based training Composite score of competency · health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training vs conventional patient‐based training Independent procedure completion · health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.45 [0.27, 0.74] | NR | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Overall incidence of parastomal hernia ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.53 [0.43, 0.66] | 10 studies · 771 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Subgroup analysis:Incidence of parastomal hernia (laparoscopic surgery) ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.64 [0.47, 0.87] | 3 studies · 153 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Subgroup analysis:Incidence of parastomal hernia (open surgery) ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.46 [0.34, 0.62] | 6 studies · 517 participants | Moderate |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Subgroup analysis:Incidence of parastomal hernia (sublay (extraperitoneal) mesh subgroup) ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.48 [0.36, 0.64] | 7 studies · 619 participants | Moderate |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Subgroup analysis:Incidence of parastomal hernia (intraperitoneal mesh subgroup) ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.76 [0.55, 1.06] | 2 studies · 101 participants | Moderate |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Incidence of parastomal hernia (worst‐case scenario sensitivity analysis) ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.49 [0.3, 0.81] | 10 studies · 835 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Incidence of parastomal hernia (best‐case scenario sensitivity analysis) ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.4 [0.26, 0.61] | 10 studies · 835 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Reoperation rate ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.9 [0.5, 1.64] | 9 studies · 757 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Operative time for index procedure ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 671 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Postoperative length of stay ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 500 participants | Moderate |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Stoma‐related infection ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.89 [0.32, 2.5] | 6 studies · 472 participants | Low |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Mesh‐related infection ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 128 participants | Ungraded |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Patient‐reported quality of life ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 263 participants | Ungraded |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Rehospitalisations/ambulatory visits required for parastomal hernia problems/treatment ( · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Prosthetic mesh placement vs standard treatment Subgroup analysis: Incidence of parastomal hernia at 12 months · individuals having a stoma formation Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.47 [0.29, 0.78] | 7 studies · 592 participants | Low |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Hernia recurrence · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.46 [0.26, 0.8] | 21 studies · 5575 participants | Moderate |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Surgical complications ‐ neurovascular or visceral injury · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.61 [0.49, 0.76] | 24 studies · 6293 participants | High |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Surgical complications ‐ wound infection · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | RR 1.29 [0.89, 1.86] | 21 studies · 4540 participants | Low |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Surgical complications ‐ wound dehiscence · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.55 [0.12, 2.48] | 2 studies · 329 participants | Low |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Mortality (within 30 days post‐surgery) · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Duration of surgery (minutes) · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 20 studies · 4148 participants | Very low |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Duration of postoperative stay (days) · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 2966 participants | Low |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Time to return to full ADLs (days) · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 3183 participants | Low |
Mesh vs non‐mesh repair Conversion from laparoscopic to open approach · adults undergoing inguinal and femoral hernia repair Mesh versus non‐mesh for inguinal and femoral hernia repair (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 1680 participants | Low |
Daikenchuto vs control Time from completion of operation to first flatus (hours) Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 83 participants | Very low |
Daikenchuto vs control Time from completion of operation to first bowel movement (hours) Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 500 participants | Very low |
Daikenchuto vs control Time from completion of operation to resumption of regular solid food intake (hours) Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 258 participants | Very low |
Daikenchuto vs control Any drug‐related adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 2) Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | RD 0 | 5 studies · 568 participants | Low |
Daikenchuto vs control Patient satisfaction on day of discharge (Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS)) Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 81 participants | Very low |
Daikenchuto vs control Incidence ratio of any re‐interventions before leaving hospital Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.99 [0.06, 15.62] | 1 study · 207 participants | Moderate |
Daikenchuto vs control Length of postoperative hospital stay (days) Daikenchuto for reducing postoperative ileus in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 292 participants | Low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Overall survival · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | HR 1.17 [0.93, 1.46] | 3 studies · 351 participants | Low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Toxicity – nausea and vomiting · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.84 [0.31, 2.25] | 2 studies · 140 participants | Very low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Toxicity – stomatitis · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 1.1 [0.47, 2.55] | 2 studies · 140 participants | Very low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Toxicity – diarrhoea · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.69 [0.34, 1.4] | 2 studies · 140 participants | Very low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Quality of life · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 161 participants | Very low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Progression‐free survival · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 351 participants | Low |
Delayed chemotherapy vs immediate chemotherapy Compliance to chemotherapy · patients with asymptomatic, incurable, metastatic colorectal cancer Survival differences with immediate versus delayed chemotherapy for asymptomatic incurable metastatic… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 174 participants | Low |
Dietary fibre (all study interventions) vs control Number of participantswith at least one recurrent adenoma · people with a history of colorectal adenomas Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.04 [0.95, 1.13] | 5 studies · 3641 participants | Low |
Dietary fibre (all study interventions) vs control Number of participantswith more than one adenoma · people with a history of colorectal adenomas Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.06 [0.94, 1.2] | 2 studies · 2542 participants | Low |
Dietary fibre (all study interventions) vs control Number of participantswith at least one adenoma 1 cm or greater · people with a history of colorectal adenomas Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.99 [0.82, 1.2] | 4 studies · 3224 participants | Low |
Dietary fibre (all study interventions) vs control Number of participantsdiagnosed with colorectal cancer · people with a history of colorectal adenomas Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas (2017) · Cochrane | RR 2.7 [1.07, 6.85] | 2 studies · 2794 participants | Low |
Absorbable vs non‐absorbable sutures Incisional hernia · patients undergoing a laparotomy Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.07 [0.86, 1.32] | 17 studies · 4720 participants | Moderate |
Continuous vs interrupted closure Wound infection at last · patients undergoing a laparotomy incision Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.13 [0.96, 1.34] | 23 studies · 10039 participants | Moderate |
Continuous vs interrupted closure Wound dehiscence at last · patients undergoing a laparotomy incision Closure methods for laparotomy incisions for preventing incisional hernias and other wound complications (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.21 [0.9, 1.64] | 21 studies · 9228 participants | Moderate |