A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 109, Issue , 2019, Pages 99-110

  Nyanchoka, Linda ^a,b   Tudur Smith, Catrin ^b   Thu, Van Nguyen ^a   Iversen, Valentia ^c   Tricco, Andrea C ^d,e   Porcher, Raphaël ^a  

^a PARIS DESCARTES UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^d ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Displaying gaps; Evidence gap maps; Evidence mapping; Evidence synthesis; Gaps in health research; Knowledge synthesis; Research gaps; Research priorities; Scoping review; Treatment uncertainties

Indexed keywords

DATA SYNTHESIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; RESEARCH PRIORITY; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNCERTAINTY; METHODOLOGY; RESEARCH;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85062153070     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Why most clinical research is not useful. PLoS Med, 13(6), 2016 e1002049.
2. Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:9683 (2009), 86–89.
3. Young, C., Horton, R., Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366:9480 (2005), 107–108.
4. Framework for identifying research gaps. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. http://www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/118.
5. Robinson, K.A., Saldanha, I.J., McKoy, N.A., Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 1325–1330.
6. Nasser, M., Setting priorities for conducting and updating systematic reviews. 2018, Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, UK.
7. Rudan, I., Campbell, H., Marusic, A., Sridhar, D., Nair, H., Adeloye, D., et al. Assembling GHERG: could “academic crowd-sourcing” address gaps in global health estimates?. J Glob Health, 5(1), 2015, 010101.
8. Viergever, R.F., Olifson, S., Ghaffar, A., Terry, R.F., A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst, 8, 2010, 36.
9. Arksey, H., O'Malley, L., Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:1 (2005), 19–32.
10. Peters, M.D., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., Soares, C.B., Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13:3 (2015), 141–146.
11. McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., Lefebvre, C., PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 75 (2016), 40–46.
12. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 16, 2016, 15.
13. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. Prisma extension for scoping reviews (prisma-scr): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169 (2018), 467–473.
14. Scott, N.A., Carmen, M., Christa, H., Jacques, M., Using health technology assessment to identify research gaps: an unexploited resource for increasing the value of clinical research. Healthc Policy 3:3 (2008), e109–e127.
15. Birte, S., Martina, V., Ami, B., Jennifer, S., Marie, G., Evidence & gap maps: a tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas. J Clin Epidemiol 79 (2016), 120–129.
16. Brearley, S.G., Stamataki, Z., Addington-Hall, J., Foster, C., Hodges, L., Jarrett, N., et al. The physical and practical problems experienced by cancer survivors: a rapid review and synthesis of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 15:3 (2011), 204–212.
17. Yu, T., Li, T., Lee, K.J., Friedman, D.S., Dickersin, K., Puhan, M.A., Setting priorities for comparative effectiveness research on management of primary angle closure: a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians. J Glaucoma 24 (2015), 348–355.
18. van Middendorp, J.J., Allison, H.C., Ahuja, S., Bracher, D., Dyson, C., Fairbank, J., et al. Top ten research priorities for spinal cord injury: the methodology and results of a British priority setting partnership. Spinal Cord 54:5 (2016), 341–346.
19. Fulgham, S.M., Shaughnessy, M.F., O & a with ed tech leaders: interview with roger kaufman. Educ Technol, 48(5), 2008, 49.
20. Müller-Bloch, C., Kranz, J., A framework for rigorously identifying research gaps in qualitative literature reviews. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, Texas, USA, 2015.
21. Hiten, D.P., Emmanuel, I., Phillip, M.P., Stephen, M.S., Michael, H.J., Ritu, S., et al. A systematic review of research gaps in the evaluation and management of localized renal masses. Urology, 98, 2016, 14.
22. Kitson, A., Straus, S.E., The knowledge-to-action cycle: identifying the gaps. Can Med Assoc J 182:2 (2010), E73–E77.
23. Thompson, A., Brennan, K., Cox, A., Gee, J., Harcourt, D., Harris, A., et al. Evaluation of the current knowledge limitations in breast cancer research: a gap analysis. Breast Cancer Res, 10(2), 2008, R26.
24. Wahl, D.A., Cooper, C., Ebeling, P.R., Eggersdorfer, M., Hilger, J., Hoffmann, K., et al. A global representation of vitamin D status in healthy populations. Arch Osteoporos 7 (2012), 155–172.
25. Chang, S.M., Carey, T.S., Kato, E.U., Guise, J.M., Sanders, G.D., Identifying research needs for improving health care. Ann Intern Med 157 (2012), 439–445.
26. Mickenautsch, S., Research gaps identified during systematic reviews of clinical trials: glass-ionomer cements. BMC Oral Health, 12(1), 2012, 18.
27. Tunis, S.R., Turkelson, C., Using health Technology assessment to identify gaps in evidence and inform study design for comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol 30 (2012), 4256–4261.
28. Mulrow, C.D., Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309 (1994), 597–599.
29. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., O'Brien, K.K., Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci, 5, 2010, 69.
30. Schwartz, S.R., Baral, S., Fertility-related research needs among women at the margins. Reprod Health Matters 23:45 (2015), 30–46.
31. Clavisi, O., Bragge, P., Tavender, E., Turner, T., Gruen, R.L., Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a global evidence mapping approach. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 496–502.e492.
32. Schmucker, C., Motschall, E., Antes, G., Meerpohl, J.J., [Methods of evidence mapping. A systematic review]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz, 56(10), 2013, 1390.
33. Atal, I., Trinquart, L., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., Differential globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0145122.
34. Ahmad, N., Boutron, I., Dechartres, A., Durieux, P., Ravaud, P., Geographical representativeness of published and ongoing randomized controlled trials. The example of: tobacco consumption and HIV infection. PLoS One, 6, 2011, e16878.
35. Ndounga Diakou, L.A., Ntoumi, F., Ravaud, P., Boutron, I., Published randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa focus on high-burden diseases but are frequently funded and led by high-income countries. J Clin Epidemiol 82 (2017), 29–36.e26.
36. Marion, L.M., Fiona, C., Susanne, K., Renee, S., Jenny, M., Toni, D., Patient, family-centred care interventions within the adult ICU setting: an integrative review. Aust Crit Care, 29(4), 2016, 179.
37. Johnson, M., Tod, A.M., Brummell, S., Collins, K., Prognostic communication in cancer: a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs 19:5 (2015), 554–567.
38. Kho, M.E., Brouwers, M.C., The systematic review and bibliometric network analysis (SeBriNA) is a new method to contextualize evidence. Part 1: description. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 1010–1015.
39. Mbuagbaw, L., Kredo, T., Welch, V., Mursleen, S., Ross, S., Zani, B., et al. Critical EPICOT items were absent in cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 74 (2016), 66–72.
40. Merigó, J.M., Yang, J.-B., A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega 73:Supplement C (2017), 37–48.
41. Boney, O., Bell, M., Bell, N., Conquest, A., Cumbers, M., Drake, S., et al. Identifying research priorities in anaesthesia and perioperative care: final report of the joint national Institute of academic anaesthesia/james lind alliance research priority setting partnership. BMJ Open, 5(12), 2015, e010006.
42. Buckley, B.S., Grant, A.M., Glazener, C.M., Case study: a patient-clinician collaboration that identified and prioritized evidence gaps and stimulated research development. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 483–489.
43. Buckley, B.S., Grant, A.M., Tincello, D.G., Wagg, A., Firkins, L., Reaching a consensus and ranking research priorities in urinary incontinence. Nurs Times 106:24 (2010), 36–37.
44. Heazell, A.E., Whitworth, M.K., Whitcombe, J., Glover, S.W., Bevan, C., Brewin, J., et al. Research priorities for stillbirth: process overview and results from UK stillbirth priority setting partnership. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46:6 (2015), 641–647.
45. Knight, S.R., Metcalfe, L., O'Donoghue, K., Ball, S.T., Beale, A., Beale, W., et al. Defining priorities for future research: results of the UK kidney transplant priority setting partnership. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0162136.
46. Welsh, E., Stovold, E., Karner, C., Cates, C., Cochrane Airways Group reviews were prioritized for updating using a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 341–346.
47. Rees, S.E., Chadha, R., Donovan, L.E., Guitard, A.L., Koppula, S., Laupacis, A., et al. Engaging patients and clinicians in establishing research priorities for gestational diabetes mellitus. Can J Diabetes 41 (2017), 156–163.
48. Jennifer, M.G., Evan, R.M., Kristine, M.S., Douglas, C.M., Remy, R.C., Matthew, J.C., et al. Prioritization of patient-centered comparative effectiveness research for osteoarthritis. Ann Intern Med, 160, 2014, 836.
49. Ingram, J.R., Abbott, R., Ghazavi, M., Alexandroff, A.B., McPhee, M., Burton, T., et al. The hidradenitis suppurativa priority setting partnership. Br J Dermatol 171 (2014), 1422–1427.
50. Gadsby, R., Snow, R., Daly, A.C., Crowe, S., Matyka, K., Hall, B., et al. Setting research priorities for Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 29 (2012), 1321–1326.
51. Li, T., Vedula, S.S., Scherer, R., Dickersin, K., What comparative effectiveness research is needed? A framework for using guidelines and systematic reviews to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. Ann Intern Med 156 (2012), 367–377.
52. Jaramillo, A., Welch, V.A., Ueffing, E., Gruen, R.L., Bragge, P., Lyddiatt, A., et al. Prevention and self-management interventions are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 503–510.e504.
53. Katz, D.L., Williams, A.L., Girard, C., Goodman, J., Comerford, B., Behrman, A., et al. The evidence base for complementary and alternative medicine: methods of evidence mapping with application to CAM. Altern Ther Health Med 9:4 (2003), 22–30.
54. Yoshida, S., Approaches, tools and methods used for setting priorities in health research in the 21(st) century. J Glob Health, 6(1), 2016, 010507.
55. Evelina, C., Ludovic, R., Amy, C., Stephanie, S., Xavier, B., Cochrane systematic reviews are useful to map research gaps for decreasing maternal mortality. J Clin Epidemiol, 66, 2013, 105.
56. Mitchell, R.B., Hussey, H.M., Setzen, G., Jacobs, I.N., Nussenbaum, B., Dawson, C., et al. Clinical consensus statement: tracheostomy care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148:1 (2013), 6–20.
57. Wald, H.L., Leykum, L.K., Mattison, M.L., Vasilevskis, E.E., Meltzer, D.O., A patient-centered research agenda for the care of the acutely ill older patient. J Hosp Med 10:5 (2015), 318–327.
58. Lophatananon, A., Tyndale-Biscoe, S., Malcolm, E., Rippon, H.J., Holmes, K., Firkins, L.A., et al. The James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for prostate cancer research: an integrative methodology based on patient and clinician participation. BJU Int 108 (2011), 1040–1043.
59. Pollock, A., St George, B., Fenton, M., Firkins, L., Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke–consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke 9:3 (2014), 313–320.
60. Meremikwu, M., Udoh, E., Nwagbara, B., Effa, E., Oringanje, C., Edet, B., et al. Priority setting for systematic review of health care interventions in Nigeria. Health Policy 99:3 (2011), 244–249.
61. Mitnick, C.D., Rodriguez, C.A., Hatton, M.L., Brigden, G., Cobelens, F., Grobusch, M.P., et al. Programmatic management of drug-resistant tuberculosis: an updated research agenda. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0155968.
62. Pollock, A., St George, B., Fenton, M., Crowe, S., Firkins, L., Development of a new model to engage patients and clinicians in setting research priorities. J Health Serv Res Policy 19 (2014), 12–18.
63. van Furth, E.F., van der Meer, A., Cowan, K., Top 10 research priorities for eating disorders. Lancet Psychiatry 3:8 (2016), 706–707.
64. Chapman, E., Reveiz, L., Sangalang, S., Manu, C., Bonfill, X., Munoz, S., et al. A survey study identified global research priorities for decreasing maternal mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 314–324.
65. Gierisch, J.M., Myers, E.R., Schmit, K.M., Crowley, M.J., McCrory, D.C., Chatterjee, R., et al. Prioritization of research addressing management strategies for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Intern Med 160 (2014), 484–491.
66. Knight, R., Small, W., Pakula, B., Thomson, K., Shoveller, J., A scoping study to identify opportunities to advance the ethical implementation and scale-up of HIV treatment as prevention: priorities for empirical research. BMC Med Ethics, 15, 2014, 54.
67. Sun, C., Dohrn, J., Omoni, G., Malata, A., Klopper, H., Larson, E., Clinical nursing and midwifery research: grey literature in African countries. Int Nurs Rev 63:1 (2016), 104–110.
68. Wan, Y.L., Beverley-Stevenson, R., Carlisle, D., Clarke, S., Edmondson, R.J., Glover, S., et al. Working together to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: the top ten unanswered research questions. Gynecol Oncol 143:2 (2016), 287–293.
69. DeFrank, J.T., Barclay, C., Sheridan, S., Brewer, N.T., Gilliam, M., Moon, A.M., et al. The psychological harms of screening: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need. J Gen Intern Med 30 (2015), 242–248.
70. Viergever, R.F., Terry, R.F., Karam, G., Use of data from registered clinical trials to identify gaps in health research and development. Bull World Health Organ 91:6 (2013), 416–425C.
71. Kumar, M.B., Wesche, S., McGuire, C., Trends in Metis-related health research (1980-2009): identification of research gaps. Can J Public Health 103:1 (2012), 23–28.
72. De Luca Canto, G., Pacheco-Pereira, C., Aydinoz, S., Major, P.W., Flores-Mir, C., Gozal, D., Biomarkers associated with obstructive sleep apnea and morbidities: a scoping review. Sleep Med 16:3 (2015), 347–357.
73. Tavender, E.J., Bosch, M., Fiander, M., Knott, J.C., Gruen, R.L., O'Connor, D., Implementation research in emergency medicine: a systematic scoping review. Emerg Med J 33:9 (2016), 652–659.
74. Singh Ospina, N., Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R., Brito, J.P., Young, W.F. Jr., Montori, V.M., Is the endocrine research pipeline broken? A systematic evaluation of the Endocrine Society clinical practice guidelines and trial registration. BMC Med, 13, 2015, 187.
75. Azeredo, T.B., Luiza, V.L., Oliveira, M.A., Emmerick, I.C., Bigdeli, M., Stakeholders' perspectives on access-to-medicines policy and research priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean: face-to-face and web-based interviews. Health Res Policy Syst, 12, 2014, 31.
76. Umscheid, C.A., A primer on performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Infect Dis 57 (2013), 725–734.
77. Atal, I., Zeitoun, J.-D., Névéol, A., Ravaud, P., Porcher, R., Trinquart, L., Automatic classification of registered clinical trials towards the global burden of diseases taxonomy of diseases and injuries. BMC Bioinformatics, 17(1), 2016, 392.
78. van den Eertwegh, V., van Dulmen, S., van Dalen, J., Scherpbier, A.J., van der Vleuten, C.P., Learning in context: identifying gaps in research on the transfer of medical communication skills to the clinical workplace. Patient Educ Couns 90:2 (2013), 184–192.
79. Carey, T., Yon, A., Beadles, C., Wines, R., Prioritizing future research through examination of research gaps in systematic reviews. 2012, Prepared for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, USA.
80. Bhavisha, V., Emma, J., Iris, G., Cova, B., Elena, S., Availability of evidence on cataract in low/middle-income settings: a review of reviews using evidence gap maps approach. Br J Ophthalmol 100 (2016), 1455–1460.
81. Miake-Lye, I.M., Hempel, S., Shanman, R., Shekelle, P.G., What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 28.
82. Wang, D.D., Shams-White, M., Bright, O.J., Parrott, J.S., Chung, M., Creating a literature database of low-calorie sweeteners and health studies: evidence mapping. BMC Med Res Methodol, 16, 2016, 1.
83. Impellizzeri, F.M., Bizzini, M., Systematic review and meta-analysis: a primer. Int J Sports Phys Ther 7:5 (2012), 493–503.
84. Tricco, A.C., Zarin, W., Ghassemi, M., Nincic, V., Lillie, E., Page, M.J., et al. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 96 (2018), 133–142.
85. Nikolakopoulou, A., Mavridis, D., Furukawa, T.A., Cipriani, A., Tricco, A.C., Straus, S.E., et al. Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study. BMJ, 360, 2018, k585.
86. Grant, M.J., Booth, A., A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 26 (2009), 91–108.
87. Althuis, M.D., Weed, D.L., Evidence mapping: methodologic foundations and application to intervention and observational research on sugar-sweetened beverages and health outcomes. Am J Clin Nutr 98 (2013), 755–768.
88. Hetrick, S.E., Parker, A.G., Callahan, P., Purcell, R., Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health. J Eval Clin Pract 16 (2010), 1025–1030.