范围综述描述了用于识别、优先考虑和展示健康研究中的差距的方法。

A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research.

机构信息

Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153) Inserm / Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France; University of Liverpool, Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

University of Liverpool, Institute of Translational Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 May;109:99-110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005. Epub 2019 Jan 30.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005

PMID:30708176

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Different methods to examine research gaps have been described, but there are still no standard methods for identifying, prioritizing, or reporting research gaps. This study aimed to describe the methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps in health research.

METHODS

A scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework was carried out. We included all study types describing or reporting on methods to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research. Data synthesis is both quantitative and qualitative.

RESULTS

Among 1,938 identified documents, 139 articles were selected for analysis; 90 (65%) aimed to identify gaps, 23 (17%) aimed to determine research priorities, and 26 (19%) had both aims. The most frequent methods in the review were aimed at gap identification and involved secondary research, which included knowledge synthesis (80/116 articles, 69%), specifically systematic reviews and scoping reviews (58/80, 73%). Among 49 studies aimed at research prioritization, the most frequent methods were both primary and secondary research, accounting for 24 (49%) reports. Finally, 52 (37%) articles described methods for displaying gaps and/or priorities in health research.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a mapping of different methods used to identify, prioritize, and display gaps or priorities in health research.

摘要

背景和目的

已经描述了不同的方法来检查研究差距，但仍没有确定、优先考虑或报告研究差距的标准方法。本研究旨在描述用于识别、优先考虑和展示健康研究差距的方法。

方法

使用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 方法学框架进行了范围综述。我们纳入了所有描述或报告用于识别、优先考虑和展示健康研究差距或重点的研究类型的文章。数据综合采用定量和定性方法。

结果

在 1938 篇已识别的文献中，有 139 篇文章被选中进行分析；90 篇（65%）旨在识别差距，23 篇（17%）旨在确定研究重点，26 篇（19%）同时有这两个目标。本综述中最常见的方法旨在识别差距，涉及二次研究，包括知识综合（80/116 篇文章，69%），特别是系统评价和范围综述（58/80，73%）。在 49 篇旨在确定研究重点的研究中，最常见的方法是同时进行初步和二次研究，占 24 篇（49%）报告。最后，52 篇（37%）文章描述了展示健康研究差距和/或重点的方法。