Article type
Year
Abstract
Introduction:
Clinical research aims to influence decision-making to provide appropriate healthcare. Funding agencies should prioritise projects addressing needed research topics, methodological considerations, cost-effectiveness, and expected social value. In Chile, there is no local diagnosis regarding recent clinical research that might inform prioritisation for future research funding.
Objective: To comprehensively identify and classify Chilean clinical research studies, and to characterise design, institutions, authors, and identify gaps of evidence in the main prioritised local health conditions.
Methods:
We conducted a broad scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and WoS, and performed hand searches to retrieve all health research studies conducted in Chile or by authors whose affiliations are based in Chile from 2000 onwards. We extracted the following data: bibliometric information, type of evidence, study design , area of study authors’ affiliations and gender, type of authorship (first, last, corresponding, or other), diseases or health conditions addressed, funding, and conflicts of interest. Through an evidence gap map approach, the retrieved studies will reveal waste research and evidence gaps for the most burdensome conditions in Chile.
Results:
After deduplication, we retrieved 48,641 publications. To date, 29,305 studies have been excluded by title/abstract screening. Among 1,715 full texts assessed for eligibility, 275 have been excluded for being conducted in other countries or having authors not based in Chile, whereas 151 have been excluded by other reasons (wrong publication type or no clinical topic). We expect to complete the selection process, data extraction, and report in three months.
Conclusion:
Providing an accurate and up-to-date picture of the national clinical research profile will support agencies and funders’ agenda. This scoping review is part of a broader government-funded project aiming to elaborate evidence gap maps for the most burdensome local conditions (Protocol DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057555).
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: None.
Clinical research aims to influence decision-making to provide appropriate healthcare. Funding agencies should prioritise projects addressing needed research topics, methodological considerations, cost-effectiveness, and expected social value. In Chile, there is no local diagnosis regarding recent clinical research that might inform prioritisation for future research funding.
Objective: To comprehensively identify and classify Chilean clinical research studies, and to characterise design, institutions, authors, and identify gaps of evidence in the main prioritised local health conditions.
Methods:
We conducted a broad scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and WoS, and performed hand searches to retrieve all health research studies conducted in Chile or by authors whose affiliations are based in Chile from 2000 onwards. We extracted the following data: bibliometric information, type of evidence, study design , area of study authors’ affiliations and gender, type of authorship (first, last, corresponding, or other), diseases or health conditions addressed, funding, and conflicts of interest. Through an evidence gap map approach, the retrieved studies will reveal waste research and evidence gaps for the most burdensome conditions in Chile.
Results:
After deduplication, we retrieved 48,641 publications. To date, 29,305 studies have been excluded by title/abstract screening. Among 1,715 full texts assessed for eligibility, 275 have been excluded for being conducted in other countries or having authors not based in Chile, whereas 151 have been excluded by other reasons (wrong publication type or no clinical topic). We expect to complete the selection process, data extraction, and report in three months.
Conclusion:
Providing an accurate and up-to-date picture of the national clinical research profile will support agencies and funders’ agenda. This scoping review is part of a broader government-funded project aiming to elaborate evidence gap maps for the most burdensome local conditions (Protocol DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057555).
Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: None.