ArticleSystematic reviews2022
Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A methodological framework for establishing regional disease-specific health research priorities (the RDHRP Framework).Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Optimizing Research Impact: A Toolkit for Stakeholder-Driven Prioritization of Systematic Review Topics.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Research prioritisation in preparedness for and response to outbreaks of high-consequence pathogens: a scoping review.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Evidence-based research.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Needs led research: ensuring relevant research in two PhD projects within maternity care.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- A Structured Approach to Involve Stakeholders in Prioritising Topics for Systematic Reviews in Public Health.International journal of public health · 2024Article
- Automatic Extraction of Research Themes in Epidemiological Criminology From PubMed Abstracts From 1946 to 2020: Text Mining Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- How an international research funder's forum developed guiding principles to ensure value and reduce waste in research.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Rebalancing commercial and public interests in prioritizing biomedical, social and environmental aspects of health through defining and managing conflicts of interest.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking.
objectivesThe identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process.
methodsEligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included. DATA SOURCES: We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO. CHARTING
methodsThe methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process.
resultsTwelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda.
conclusionNone of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dygz8/ ).
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.