Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40059172›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Research prioritisation in preparedness for and response to outbreaks of high-consequence pathogens: a scoping review.

Emilia Antonio, Nicolas Pulik, Susan Khader Ibrahim, Adebisi Adenipekun, Shanthi Levanita, Isabel Foster, Dorothy Chepkirui, Eli Harriss, Louise Sigfrid, Alice Norton

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Emilia AntonioPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Nicolas PulikPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Susan Khader IbrahimPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Adebisi AdenipekunPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Shanthi LevanitaPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Isabel FosterPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Dorothy ChepkiruiPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Eli HarrissBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Louise SigfridPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Alice NortonPolicy and Practice Research Group, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK. alice.norton@ndm.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership CSA2022GloPID-R-3387UK Research and Innovation 10061268Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 226543/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPriority setting for research on epidemic/pandemic-prone pathogens is essential for the allocation of limited resources to optimise impact. It involves the identification of gaps in knowledge crucial to effective preparedness and response to outbreaks. This review maps priority-setting exercises, reviews their approaches to research prioritisation and describes associated monitoring and evaluation processes for research priorities on high-consequence pathogens.

methodsUsing search terms associated with high-consequence pathogens, as defined by the WHO (2020), EMERGE (2019), European CDC (2022) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (2021), and research prioritisation, we searched WHO Global Index Medicus; Ovid Medline; Ovid Embase; Ovid Global Health; and Scopus. Grey literature sources were Google Scholar and the WHO websites, complemented by recommendations from stakeholder consultation. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-texts including documents describing research prioritisation activities. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

resultsWe identified 125 publications presenting priority setting activities on 17 high-consequence pathogens published between 1975 and 2022. Most (62%) were related to SARS-CoV-2, 5.6% to Ebola virus and 5% to Zika virus. Three different broad approaches to setting priorities were identified, most (53%) involved external consultations with experts. Few (6%) indicated plans to monitor progress against set priorities.

conclusionsOur results highlight the diversity in research prioritisation practice in the context of high-consequence pathogens and a limited application of the existing standards in health research prioritisation. An increased uptake of these standards and harmonisation of practice may improve quality and confidence and ultimately improve alignment of funded research with the resulting priorities.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDisease OutbreaksHealth PrioritiesResearchCOVID-19HumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2High-consequence pathogensOutbreaksPreparednessResearch prioritisationResponse

Identifiers

PMID40059172
PMCPMC11892158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.