Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 May;66(5):538-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.07.009. Epub 2012 Sep 18.
To ensure appropriate allocation of research funds, we need methods for identifying high-priority research needs. We developed and pilot tested a process to identify needs for primary clinical research using a systematic review in gestational diabetes mellitus.
We conducted eight steps: abstract research gaps from a systematic review using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Settings (PICOS) framework; solicit feedback from the review authors; translate gaps into researchable questions using the PICOS framework; solicit feedback from multidisciplinary stakeholders at our institution; establish consensus among multidisciplinary external stakeholders on the importance of the research questions using the Delphi method; prioritize outcomes; develop conceptual models to highlight research needs; and evaluate the process.
We identified 19 research questions. During the Delphi method, external stakeholders established consensus for 16 of these 19 questions (15 with "high" and 1 with "medium" clinical benefit/importance).
We pilot tested an eight-step process to identify clinically important research needs. Before wider application of this process, it should be tested using systematic reviews of other diseases. Further evaluation should include assessment of the usefulness of the research needs generated using this process for primary researchers and funders.
为了确保研究资金的合理分配，我们需要确定高优先级研究需求的方法。我们开发并试点测试了一种使用系统评价识别妊娠糖尿病主要临床研究需求的流程。
我们进行了八个步骤：使用人口、干预、比较、结局和环境（PICOS）框架从系统评价中提取研究空白；征求审查作者的反馈意见；使用 PICOS 框架将空白转化为可研究的问题；向我们机构的多学科利益相关者征求反馈意见；使用德尔菲法确定多学科外部利益相关者对研究问题重要性的共识；确定优先事项；制定概念模型突出研究需求；并评估流程。
我们确定了 19 个研究问题。在德尔菲法中，外部利益相关者对这 19 个问题中的 16 个达成了共识（15 个具有“高”临床获益/重要性，1 个具有“中”临床获益/重要性）。
我们试点测试了一种八步流程，用于确定具有临床重要性的研究需求。在更广泛地应用此流程之前，应使用其他疾病的系统评价进行测试。进一步的评估应包括评估使用此流程生成的研究需求对主要研究人员和资助者的有用性。
