Development and pilot test of a process to identify research needs from a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations


Objective: 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. Study Design and Setting: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)538-545
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Issue number5
StatePublished - May 2013


  • Comparative effectiveness research
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Gestational diabetes
  • Pilot study
  • Research priorities
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology


Dive into the research topics of 'Development and pilot test of a process to identify research needs from a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this