ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Reporting Horizon Scanning Studies: Prototype Development Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Horizon scanning identifies weak signals of innovation to anticipate future developments, providing strategic value for health care decision-making. Unlike evidence synthesis, it addresses emerging and uncertain areas but lacks standardized reporting guidance, limiting transparency, consistency, and impact. Inconsistent terminology and poorly described methods hinder comparability and uptake of findings. Objective: This study aimed to develop a prototype reporting checklist and glossary to support structured, transparent, and reproducible reporting of horizon scanning methods in health care innovation. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group of horizon scanning, evidence synthesis, and information specialists was convened at the National Institute for Health and Care Research Innovation Observatory, the UK national horizon scanning center, in May 2024. Using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist as a framework, 4 workshops were held to adapt relevant reporting items and build a prototype checklist. Internal validation was conducted on 17 eligible Innovation Observatory reports (2017-2024), with scoring to assess item coverage. Items were then refined, classified as mandatory or optional, and finalized through consensus. Results: Of 46 outputs screened, 17 (37%) met the inclusion criteria. In total, 42.9% (15/35) of the checklist items achieved 50% or more coverage; 57.1% (20/35) scored less than 50%. The final 35-item checklist (n=31, 88.6% single items and n=4, 11.4% multipart items) includes 28 (80%) mandatory and 7 (20%) optional items. Four novel components were introduced: interest holder description; horizon, innovation, population, data source, and interest holder scope framework; technology characteristics; and integration of the political, economic, social, technological, legal, environmental, and demographic factors framework. Conclusions: This is the first checklist to standardize reporting in health technology horizon scanning. While this checklist prototype has been developed internally, external validation involving multidisciplinary experts via a Delphi process and a scoping review is planned. Its adoption can enhance transparency, reproducibility, and strategic impact, strengthening this methodological field.
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.