ReviewCureus2024
Bridging, Mapping, and Addressing Research Gaps in Health Sciences: The Naqvi-Gabr Research Gap Framework.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global trends and research gaps in deep brain stimulation for neurodevelopmental disorders: a scientometrics exploration of functional and behavioral outcomes.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Innovations pertaining to the ever-evolving needs of the medical and healthcare sciences remain constant. This creates a gap between the rationalized needs of the study and the proposed research question. However, classifying, identifying, and addressing these research gaps require a systematic and precise structured map. Using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms "Research Gaps" AND "Healthcare" AND "Framework" in MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL databases with the filters yielded no relevant literature. Therefore, this review aims to fill this practical and clinical knowledge gap by developing the Naqvi-Gabr Research Gap Framework through critical synthesis based on extensive research on medical and healthcare research gaps. Fourteen research gaps are distributed for allocation as per the healthcare delivery system approach: developing new treatments or prevention strategies, improving diagnostic tools and techniques, addressing health disparities, and improving access to healthcare services. This structured framework determines the strategic mapping of research gaps corresponding to the nature of the research. The identification and classification of the appropriate research gap led to precise and concise conclusions corresponding to the research process proposed in this study. Hence, the Naqvi-Gabr Research Gap Framework is a valuable tool for determining the potential application of gaps by researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders with a productive address.
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.