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.
67 questions in 8 reviews · Methodology
current versionsNo studies 15 · 22.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 22 · 32.8%Low 19 · 28.4%Moderate 8 · 11.9%High 3 · 4.5%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Intervention NR Difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies [for RCTs vs OBSs] · systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized… (2024) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Completeness of reporting Proportion of items adequately reported, from 0.00 to 1.00, higher number indicates more complete reporting. · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Moderate |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Peer reviewer detection of errors Number of major errors identified, assessed by 2 researchers independently, from 0 to 9, higher number indicates better detection. · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Stakeholders' assessment of review quality (final score) Assessed by 2 editors independently using the RQI from 1 to 5 (average of the 2 ratings), higher scores indicate higher quality. · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Stakeholders' assessment of review quality (change score) Assessed using either:A) a 5‐point scale, change scores range from −4 to 4 (3 studies);B) a 5‐point scale, expressed by "slope of quality score change"(1 study); orC) the MQAI, from −144 to... · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Inter‐reviewer agreement (final score) Assessed using the average deviation between reviewers, from −4 to 0, higher scores indicate higher agreement. · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Inter‐reviewer agreement (change score) Assessed using the average score difference between reviewers, possible changes scores range from −9 to 9, higher scores indicate increased agreement. · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Summary of findings. Peer reviewer training vs standard journal practice or no training Bibliometric scores · peer reviewers Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review (2023) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Wait‐list compared with no‐treatment · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Non‐serious adverse events for all placebos compared with wait‐list or no treatment (Spontaneous reporting of dichotomous outcomes) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | RD 0.03 | 14 studies · 590 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Usual care compared with wait‐list/no‐treatment (Variety of continuous outcome) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 523 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Serious adverse events for all placebos · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR Non‐serious adverse events for all placebos · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intervention NR All placebos compared with wait‐list or no‐treatment (Variety of continuous outcome) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 65 studies · 2446 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Psychological placebos compared with wait‐list or no‐treatment (Variety of continuous outcome) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 38 studies · 1263 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Pharmacological placebos compared with wait‐list or no‐treatment (Variety of continuous outcome) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 279 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Physical placebos compared with wait‐list or no‐treatment (Variety of continuous outcome) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 17 studies · 896 participants | Low |
Intervention NR Serious adverse events for all placebos compared with wait‐list or no treatment (Spontaneous reporting of dichotomous outcomes) (Post‐treatment) · patients with mental health disorders Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders (2022) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 517 participants | Very low |
Questionnaire design: short vs usual questionnaire Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Monetary incentives: addition of monetary incentives vs addition of a monetary reward Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1 [0.91, 1.09] | 4 studies · 3765 participants | Very low |
Monetary incentives: addition of monetary reward vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.02 [0.96, 1.09] | 3 studies · 1159 participants | Very low |
Non‐monetary incentives: addition of pen vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.02 [1, 1.05] | 5 studies · 13013 participants | Low |
Maintaining participant engagement: newsletter vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.99 [0.95, 1.04] | 4 studies · 5622 participants | Very low |
Maintaining participant engagement: post‐it note vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1 [0.99, 1.01] | 3 studies · 4698 participants | Low |
Behavioural interventions: theory informed cover letter vs usual cover letter Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.05 [0.98, 1.12] | 4 studies · 3343 participants | Very low |
Impact of recruitment: optimised information vs standard information Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.96 [0.85, 1.09] | 2 studies · 1285 participants | Very low |
Questionnaire design: addition of diary to usual follow‐up vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.97 [0.96, 0.98] | 2 studies · 9906 participants | Moderate |
Data collection location and method: telephone follow‐up vs postal questionnaire Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.04 [0.94, 1.17] | 2 studies · 1006 participants | Very low |
Intervention NR Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.15] | 3 studies · 1543 participants | Low |
Reminders: electronic reminder vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.01 [0.95, 1.09] | 3 studies · 790 participants | Low |
Prompts: Electronic prompt vs no prompt Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.03 [0.98, 1.08] | 5 studies · 2897 participants | Very low |
Prompts: Telephone prompt vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.02 [0.85, 1.22] | 2 studies · 943 participants | Very low |
Prompts: personalised prompt vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.97 [0.89, 1.07] | 2 studies · 701 participants | Low |
Monetary incentives: addition of monetary incentives vs usual follow‐up Retention [ · trial participants being followed up for data collection Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.2 [1.06, 1.36] | 3 studies · 3166 participants | Low |
Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring Combined outcome of proportion of participants with major or critical monitoring findings · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.03 [0.8, 1.33] | 2 studies · 2377 participants | Moderate |
Central and local monitoring only vs central and local monitoring with on‐site visits Impact of the monitoring strategy on participant recruitment · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Central and local monitoring only vs central and local monitoring with on‐site visits Impact of the monitoring strategy on · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | OR 0.8 [0.5, 1.1] | 1 study · 4371 participants | Very low |
Central and local monitoring only vs central and local monitoring with on‐site visits Effect of the monitoring strategy on resource use Cost attributed to on‐site monitoring (including visits for‐cause: 4 in on‐site group; 6 in the no on‐site group) · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
Remote or targeted source data verification vs 100% source data verification Monitoring findings · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 126 participants | Low |
Remote or targeted source data verification vs 100% source data verification Impact of the monitoring strategy on participant recruitment · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Remote or targeted source data verification vs 100% source data verification Impact of the monitoring strategy on · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Remote or targeted source data verification vs 100% source data verification Effect of the monitoring strategy on resource use · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 126 participants | Very low |
Monitoring with vs without initiation visit Monitoring findings · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Monitoring with vs without initiation visit Impact of the monitoring strategy on participant recruitment Difference in the number of recruited participants between groups visited vs non‐visited · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 573 participants | Very low |
Monitoring with vs without initiation visit Impact of the monitoring strategy on · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 573 participants | Very low |
Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring Impact of the monitoring strategy on participant on recruitment · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Monitoring with vs without initiation visit Effect of the monitoring strategy on resource use · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring Impact of the monitoring strategy on · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Risk‐based vs extensive on‐site monitoring Effect of the monitoring strategy on resource use · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
Central monitoring with triggered vs untriggered on‐site visits Sites ≥ 1 major monitoring finding combined outcome · clinical trials in all fields of health care Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.92 [0.4, 9.17] | 2 studies · 105 participants | Low |