From: Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses
Author and publication year | Review type | Material | Search (sources, limitations) | Overall aim | No. of included studies |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Badakhshan (2018) [20] | Systematic review | Reports on priority setting in health research in the Islamic Republic of Iran | Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to December 2015 | Evaluating the quality of priority-setting reports on health research in the Islamic Republic of Iran | 36 |
Booth (2018) [21] | Scoping review | Studies using any consensus consultation method | ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE/MEDLINE In-Process, and Embase Searches limited to 2000 to 2017 | Mapping research priorities identified in existing research prioritisation exercises regarding infants, children, and young people with life-limiting conditions | 24 |
Bryant (2014) [10] | Narrative review | Peer-reviewed studies | MEDLINE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and grey literature Searches limited to 1990 to March 2012 | Examining methods, models, and frameworks used to make health research priorities | 15 |
Erntoft (2011) [22] | Systematic review | Empirical articles | PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PsycINFO Searches limited to 1990 to 2009 | Investigating which factors and criteria are used in priority setting of pharmaceuticals | 30 |
Garcia (2015) [23] | Systematic review | Studies in English, Spanish, or Portuguese that address the topic in the region of the Americas | Web of Science, PubMed, LILACS, and Google Searches limited to 2008 to 2013 | Systematic review of literature on priorities in nursing research on health systems and services in the region of the Americas as a step towards developing a nursing research agenda | 23 |
Manafo (2018) [24] | Rapid review | Studies conducted in Canada, the US, Europe, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Scandinavian countries | HealthStar (via OVID), CINAHL, ProQuest databases, Scholar’s Portal Searches limited to 2001 to 2017 | Describing the evidence in relation to patient and public engagement priority setting in both health ecosystems and health research | 62 |
McGregor (2014) [9] | Systematic review | Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature | PubMed, Embase, and CINHAL No date limits on searches; the search ended in March 2014 | Priority setting processes have been undertaken in a number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings and using a variety of methods. We undertook a critical review of reports of these processes | 116 |
Pii (2019) [25] | Systematic review | Original research studies describing the involvement of cancer patients, stakeholders, and carers as active partners at any stage of the research process were included | PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO Searches limited to 2006 to 2017 | Describing the current state of patient and public involvement in cancer research with a focus on applied methods, among others | 27 |
Reveiz (2013) [26] | Systematic review | National health research policies and priority agendas | The Health Research Web (HRWeb), web-based search of the official websites of health-related institutions, PubMed, LILACS, and Google Searches limited to 2002 to 2012 | Comparing health research priority-setting methods and characteristics among countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 2002 and 2012 | 16 |
Rylance (2010) [27] | Systematic review | Peer-reviewed studies related to tuberculosis | PubMed, reference lists of included studies, experts Searches limited to 1998 to 2010 | Summarising existing priority statements and assessing the rigour of methods used to generate priorities for tuberculosis research | 30 |
Tong (2017) [28] | Systematic review | Studies that directly elicited and identified research priorities for adult solid organ transplantation and published in any language in peer-reviewed journals | MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO from database inception, James Lind Alliance website, and Google Scholar No date limits on the searches; search ended 31 October 2016 | Evaluating research priority setting in solid organ transplantation | 21 |
Tong (2015) [29] | Systematic review | Studies that elicited patient, caregiver, healthcare provider, or policymaker priorities for research on kidney disease | MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, Google Scholar, JLA, and PubMed No date limits on searches; searches from inception to 1 May 2014 | Evaluating methods to research prioritisation in kidney disease | 16 |