Methods for identifying and displaying gaps in clinical research

Session: 

Oral session: Understanding and using evidence (3)

Date: 

Tuesday 18 September 2018 - 11:30 to 11:40

Location: 

Carrick 3

All authors in correct order:

Nyanchoka L1, Tudur-Smith C2, Nguyen VT1, Porcher R1
1 Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153) Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, France
2 University of Liverpool, Institute of Translational Medicine, United Kingdom
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Linda Nyanchoka

Contact person:

Linda Nyanchoka
Abstract text
Background:
The current body of clinical research is growing, with over one million research papers published from clinical trials alone. This volume of health research demonstrates the importance of conducting knowledge syntheses to provide an evidence base and identify gaps, which can inform further research, policy-making and practice.

Objectives:
This study aims to describe methods for identifying and displaying research gaps.

Methods:
We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, the PROSPERO register, TRIP, Google Scholar and Google. The searches were limited to studies in English, conducted in humans and published in the last 10 years for database searches and unrestricted for handsearch and expert suggestion articles.

Results:
The literature search retrieved 1938 references, of which we included 139 for data synthesis. Of the 139 studies, 91 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 22 (16%) to determine research priorities and 26 (19%) had both aims. A total of 13 different definitions of research gaps were identified. The methods for identifying gaps included different study designs: some examples included primary research methods (quantitative surveys, interviews and focus groups), secondary research methods (systematic reviews, overviews of reviews, scoping reviews, evidence mapping and bibliometric analysis), and primary and secondary research methods (James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships (JLA PSP) and Global Evidence Mapping (GEM)).

Conclusions:
This study provides an overview of the different methods used to identify and/or report on gaps, to determine research priorities and to display both gaps and research priorities. These study findings can be adapted to inform the development of methodological guidance on ways to advance methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps to inform research and evidence-based decision-making.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Of the 139 articles included in the scoping review only 20 articles described the involvement and/or participation of patients and consumers in their studies; this was primarily in determining research priorities versus identifying gaps.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

Patients and consumers can greatly benefit from better understanding the current body of evidence and evidence gaps to inform the knowledge and decisions about a specific health topic. The research undertaken looked at published articles to identify if they are involved and/or participating in methods to identify gaps and determine research priorities. We identified few studies mentioning the role of patients and consumers, of which were primarily in determining research priorities vs identification of gaps.