Article type
Abstract
Background: Research gaps in guidelines typically refer to suggestions for further research. Standardized reporting of research gaps can provide direction for researchers to conduct studies, provide evidence for guideline updates, and thus facilitate clinical practice.
Objectives: This study aims to analyze the current state of reporting research gaps and propose actionable recommendations by surveying relevant articles on the topic of research gaps and existing guidelines development manuals.
Methods: (1) We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, China Biomedical Literature database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure using search terms such as "research gaps," "evidence gaps," etc. The search period was from inception to February 1, 2024. (2) We retrieved the full text of the 68 guideline development manuals included in the articles, whose title is "Evidence to decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations," and conducted supplementary searches for guidelines development manuals by tracing references and consulting experts in the field. Two researchers independently read the literature obtained through the two ways mentioned above and extracted content related to research gaps.
Results and conclusions: While our study is still ongoing, we have some initial results. Among 133 guidelines published by the World Health Organization between 2007 and 2013, 26 (20.0%) reported research gaps. In China, 27 of 226 guidelines published in 2019 (11.9%) reported research gaps. The Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) includes an item dedicated to research gaps ("Describe the gaps in the evidence and/or provide suggestions for future research"). The RIGHT Working Group has also started developing guidelines for reporting research gaps (RIGHT for Research Gaps). Based on our knowledge, we propose the following recommendations for reporting research gaps: (1) add a subheading "Research Gaps" in the discussion section or add a table on research gaps; (2) list all identified "research gaps" during the evidence search; (3) adhere to the PICOS (Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study design) principles. Detailed results and conclusions will be presented at the conference.
Objectives: This study aims to analyze the current state of reporting research gaps and propose actionable recommendations by surveying relevant articles on the topic of research gaps and existing guidelines development manuals.
Methods: (1) We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, China Biomedical Literature database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure using search terms such as "research gaps," "evidence gaps," etc. The search period was from inception to February 1, 2024. (2) We retrieved the full text of the 68 guideline development manuals included in the articles, whose title is "Evidence to decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations," and conducted supplementary searches for guidelines development manuals by tracing references and consulting experts in the field. Two researchers independently read the literature obtained through the two ways mentioned above and extracted content related to research gaps.
Results and conclusions: While our study is still ongoing, we have some initial results. Among 133 guidelines published by the World Health Organization between 2007 and 2013, 26 (20.0%) reported research gaps. In China, 27 of 226 guidelines published in 2019 (11.9%) reported research gaps. The Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) includes an item dedicated to research gaps ("Describe the gaps in the evidence and/or provide suggestions for future research"). The RIGHT Working Group has also started developing guidelines for reporting research gaps (RIGHT for Research Gaps). Based on our knowledge, we propose the following recommendations for reporting research gaps: (1) add a subheading "Research Gaps" in the discussion section or add a table on research gaps; (2) list all identified "research gaps" during the evidence search; (3) adhere to the PICOS (Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study design) principles. Detailed results and conclusions will be presented at the conference.