ReviewBulletin of the National Research Centre2022
What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews.
Review in Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prioritizing policy issues for knowledge translation: a critical interpretive synthesis.Global health research and policy · 2025Pooled it
- Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2024Pooled it
- Methodological procedures for priority setting mental health research: a systematic review summarising the methods, designs and frameworks involved with priority setting.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Modernizing Brain Injury Services in British Columbia: Developing Research Priorities for Children and Youth with Acquired Brain Injury.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Methodological review: Prioritizing a future research agenda for overcoming immunization implementation barriers in Pakistan.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Do We Need Systematic Reviews of Research Priority Setting? A Proposal for a New Concept on Conducting Systematic Reviews of Research Priority Setting Exercises.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing Research Impact: A Toolkit for Stakeholder-Driven Prioritization of Systematic Review Topics.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Identifying research priorities for infection prevention and control. A mixed methods study with a convergent design.Journal of infection prevention · 2024Article
- Research prioritisation on prevention and management of preterm birth in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a special focus on Bangladesh using the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method.Journal of global health · 2023Article
- Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Identifying and prioritizing research to inform a research agenda for Canadian chiropractors working in sport - the Canadian sports chiropractic perspective.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. MAIN BODY: We searched Ovid MEDLINE
conclusionOur overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.