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.
612 questions in 46 reviews · Work
current versionsNo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Morning bright light vs afternoon bright light Alertness · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | MD 7 | 1 study · 30 participants | Low |
Morning bright light vs afternoon bright light Mood · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | RR 1.6 [0.81, 3.2] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low |
Morning bright light vs afternoon bright light Adverse events (frequency) · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.53 [0.26, 1.07] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low |
High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination Mood (positive) · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 94 participants | Very low |
High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination Mood (negative) · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 94 participants | Very low |
High correlated colour temperature light vs standard illumination Adverse events ‐ eye discomfort · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 94 participants | Very low |
Indirect light vs direct light Alertness · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Indirect light vs direct light Mood · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low |
Indirect light vs direct light Adverse events (ocular problems) · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Low |
Individually applied blue‐enriched light vs no treatment Alertness · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low |
Individually applied blue‐enriched light vs no treatment Mood · daytime workers Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cyclophosphamide alone · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.83 [0.46, 1.52] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cytarabine · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.72 [0.18, 2.86] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Gemcitabine · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.96 [0.6, 1.54] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Irinotecan, docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, ganciclovir, epirubicin, multiple drugsϯ · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Patient‐care areas · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone 5‐fluorouracil, cytarabine, gemcitabine, irinotecan, docetaxel, paclitaxel, vinorelbine, multiple drugsϯ · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cyclophosphamide‡ · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Epirubicin · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cytarabine, gemcitabine, and irinotecan · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone 5‐fluorouracil, cytarabine, gemcitabine, and irinotecan · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Other measures of contamination · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.09 [0, 2.79] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Health outcomes · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Adverse events · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Potential cost savings · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Other measures of exposure · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Pharmacy areas · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Cyclophosphamide · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.89 [0.78, 1.01] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Ifosfamide · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.94 [0.74, 1.19] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone Methotrexate · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.84 [0.58, 1.22] | NR | Very low |
Closed‐system transfer device plus safe handling vs safe handling alone 5‐fluorouracil · healthcare staff who handle infusional hazardous drugs Closed‐system drug‐transfer devices plus safe handling of hazardous drugs versus safe handling alone for… (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.63 [0.42, 0.94] | NR | Very low |
Intervention NR Immediate change in level in year 2000 (noise level at work as PEL dose in dB(A); range 0 to 6400, log scale) · workers with noise exposure Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) vs non‐exposed workers (hearing loss) Hearing loss Change in hearing threshold at 4 kHz in dB · workers Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1846 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Change in slope after introduction (noise level at work as PEL dose in dB(A); range 0 to 6400, log scale) · workers with noise exposure Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Earplugs with instruction vs without instruction (noise exposure) Mean noise attenuation over 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 kHz (dB) Immediate · workers with exposure to noise Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 140 participants | Moderate |
Training plus exposure information vs training (noise exposure) Change in noise levels at 4 months' · workers exposed to noise Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 176 participants | Low |
Earmuffs vs earplugs (hearing loss) Hearing loss change over 3 years (4 kHz/STS) · workers exposed to 88‐94 dB(A) Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.8 [0.63, 1.03] | 3242 participants | Very low |
Hearing loss prevention programme vs audiometric testing (hearing loss) Hearing loss STS ≥ 10 dB loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear · agricultural students without hearing loss Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.85 [0.29, 2.44] | 1 study · 687 participants | Moderate |
Hearing loss prevention programme vs audiometric testing (hearing loss) Hearing loss STS ≥ 10 dB hearing loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear · agricultural students without hearing loss Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.94 [0.46, 1.91] | 1 study · 355 participants | Moderate |
Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) with exposure information vs HLPP without exposure information (hearing loss) Annual increase in hearing threshold (dB/year at 2,3 and 4 kHz) · workers exposed to noise Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 312 participants | Very low |
Well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) vs less well‐implemented HLPP (hearing loss) Hearing loss STS > 10 dB change average over 2, 3 and 4 kHz1 · workers Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.4 [0.23, 0.69] | 3 studies · 16301 participants | Very low |
Cognitive rehabilitation vs no treatment Return to work Assessed by attainment of work within 14 weeks (medium‐term) of initiating intervention · traumatic brain injury ‐ mild, moderate or severe Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.8 [0.74, 4.39] | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low |
Cognitive didactic therapy vs functional experiential therapy Independence in ADL Structured interview · adult veterans or active duty military service personnel with moderate‐to‐severe traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | RR 0.9 [0.75, 1.08] | 1 study · 366 participants | Low |
Cognitive rehabilitation vs no treatment Community integration · traumatic brain injury ‐ mild, moderate or severe Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 12 participants | Low |
Cognitive rehabilitation vs no treatment Quality of life · traumatic brain injury ‐ mild, moderate or severe Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 98 participants | Low |
Cognitive rehabilitation vs conventional treatment Return to work Return to work status · people with traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | RR 1.43 [0.87, 2.33] | 1 study · 68 participants | Low |
Cognitive rehabilitation vs conventional treatment Independence in ADL FIM, with 18 items in basic and psychosocial functional activities. Score ranges from 0 to 126; higher scores indicate higher functional independence. Assessment of motor and process skills, score ranges from 4 to 144; higher s... · people with traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 41 participants | Very low |
Cognitive rehabilitation vs conventional treatment Community integration Community Integration Questionnaire. Score ranges from 0 to 29, higher scores indicate better community integration. · people with traumatic brain injury Cognitive rehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury to improve occupational outcomes (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 123 participants | Low |