Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Frameworks to identify research gaps, frame research needs, and derive research priorities from evidence syntheses: a scoping review

  • Omar Dewidar
  • , Mouad Elganga
  • , Martin Ringsten
  • , Miranda Langendam
  • , K. M. Saif-Ur-Rahman
  • , Malgorzata M. Bala
  • , Chiara Arienti
  • , Antonio Bognanni
  • , Andrea J. Darzi
  • , Paweł Jemioło
  • , Sebastian Krawczyk
  • , Stefano G. Lazzarini
  • , Manuel Marques-Cruz
  • , Joerg J. Meerpohl
  • , Getrud J. Mollel
  • , Elena Parmelli
  • , Karen A. Robinson
  • , Bernardo Sousa-Pinto
  • , Waldemar Siemens
  • , Rafael José Vieira
  • Samuel J. White, Maura Marcucci, Holger J. Schünemann
  • University of Ottawa
  • University of Toronto
  • Lund University
  • Amsterdam University Medical Center
  • Amsterdam UMC
  • University of Galway
  • Jagiellonian University Medical College
  • Humanitas University
  • IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas - Rozzano (Milano)
  • McMaster University
  • AGH University of Krakow
  • Georgia Institute of Technology
  • University of Milan - Bicocca
  • University of Porto
  • University of Freiburg
  • Cochrane Germany Foundation
  • St Francis University College of Health and Allied Sciences
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Adelaide University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives To identify and describe frameworks for systematically identifying research gaps from evidence syntheses, framing research needs, and establishing priorities, with emphasis on their use of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) certainty of evidence (CoE) domains and evidence-to-decision (EtD) criteria. Study Design and Setting We conducted a scoping review following JBI guidance, searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science on July 14, 2025, for publications from 2011 onward. Eligible documents described approaches for identifying research gaps or formulating research needs from systematic reviews or other evidence syntheses, not limited to GRADE. Data were extracted on framework structure, methods for gap identification, use of GRADE CoE to explore nature of the gaps, GRADE EtD to frame needs, and strategies for prioritization. Results Fourteen frameworks from 17 publications were identified. Five frameworks used the Population, Interventions, Comparisons and Outcomes (PICO) approach to characterize research gaps. Six frameworks provided explicit methods to investigate the nature of the gaps, typically through GRADE CoE assessment. None fully integrated the GRADE EtD framework, although some considered selected EtD criteria when framing research needs. Four included methods for prioritizing needs. Conclusion Frameworks to identify research gaps and formulate needs from evidence syntheses are heterogeneous and often lack explicit methods for investigating the nature of the gaps or prioritizing research. This review will inform guidance on how to use GRADE to systematically and transparently inform future research.

Original languageEnglish
Article number112342
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume197
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2026

Keywords

  • Evidence synthesis
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • GRADE
  • Health technology assessment
  • Research gaps
  • Research recommendations
  • Systematic reviews

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Frameworks to identify research gaps, frame research needs, and derive research priorities from evidence syntheses: a scoping review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this