The identification of gaps from systematic reviews is essential to the practice of ''evidence-based research.'' Health care research should begin and end with a systematic review. A comprehensive and explicit consideration of the existing evidence is necessary for the identification and development of an unanswered and answerable question, for the design of a study most likely to answer that question, and for the interpretation of the results of the study. In a systematic review, the consideration of existing evidence often highlights important areas where deficiencies in information limit our ability to make decisions. We define a research gap as a topic or area for which missing or inadequate information limits the ability of reviewers to reach a conclusion for a given question. A research gap may be further developed, such as through stakeholder engagement in prioritization, into research needs. Research needs are those areas where the gaps in the evidence limit decision making by patients, clinicians, and policy makers. A research gap may not be a research need if filling the gap would not be of use to stakeholders that make decisions in health care. The clear and explicit identification of research gaps is a necessary step in developing a research agenda. Evidence reports produced by Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) have always included a future research section. However, in contrast to the explicit and transparent steps taken in the completion of a systematic review, there has not been a systematic process for the identification of research gaps. We developed a framework to systematically identify research gaps from systematic reviews. This framework facilitates the classification of where the current evidence falls short and why the evidence falls short. The framework included two elements: (1) the characterization the gaps and (2) the identification and classification of the reason(s) for the research gap. The PICOS structure (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Setting) was used in this framework to describe questions or parts of questions inadequately addressed by the evidence synthesized in the systematic review. The issue of timing, sometimes included as PICOTS, was considered separately for Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome. The PICOS elements were the only sort of framework we had identified in an audit of existing methods for the identification of gaps used by EPCs and other related organizations (i.e., health technology assessment organizations). We chose to use this structure as it is one familiar to EPCs, and others, in developing questions. It is not only important to identify research gaps but also to determine how the evidence falls short, in order to maximally inform researchers, policy makers, and funders on the types of questions that need to be addressed and the types of studies needed to address these questions. Thus, the second element of the framework was the classification of the reasons for the existence of a research gap. For each research gap, the reason(s) that most preclude conclusions from being made in the systematic review is chosen by the review team completing the framework. To leverage work already being completed by review teams, we mapped the reasons for research gaps to concepts from commonly used evidence grading systems. Our objective in this project was to complete two types of further evaluation: (1) application of the framework across a larger sample of existing systematic reviews in different topic areas, and (2) implementation of the framework by EPCs. These two objectives were used to evaluate the framework and instructions for usability and to evaluate the application of the framework by others, outside of our EPC, including as part of the process of completing an EPC report. Our overall goal was to produce a revised framework with guidance that could be used by EPCs to explicitly identify research gaps from systematic reviews.

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

In this open access edited volume, international researchers of the field describe and discuss the systematic review method in its application to research in education. Alongside fundamental methodical considerations, reflections and practice examples are included and provide an introduction and overview on systematic reviews in education research.

To order please visit https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/press/books/ordering/

This timely, engaging book provides an overview of the nature, logic, diversity and process of undertaking systematic reviews as part of evidence informed decision making. A focused, accessible and technically up-to-date book, it covers the full breadth of approaches to reviews from statistical meta analysis to meta ethnography. It is ideal for anyone undertaking their own systematic review - providing all the necessary conceptual and technical background needed to make a good start on the process. The content is divided into five clear sections: • Approaches to reviewing • Getting started • Gathering and describing research • Appraising and synthesising data • Making use of reviews/models of research use. Easy to read and logically structured, this book is essential reading for anyone doing systematic reviews. David Gough is Professor of Evidence Informed Policy and Practice and Director of SSRU and its EPPI-Centre and Co-Editor of the journal Evidence & Policy. Sandy Oliver is Professor of Public Policy and Deputy Director of SSRU and its EPPI-Centre. James Thomas is Reader in Social Policy, Assistant Director of SSRU and Associate Direcctor of the EPPI-Centre.

Healthcare providers, consumers, researchers and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information, including evidence from healthcare research. It has become impossible for all to have the time and resources to find, appraise and interpret this evidence and incorporate it into healthcare decisions. Cochrane Reviews respond to this challenge by identifying, appraising and synthesizing research-based evidence and presenting it in a standardized format, published in The Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com). The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions contains methodological guidance for the preparation and maintenance of Cochrane intervention reviews. Written in a clear and accessible format, it is the essential manual for all those preparing, maintaining and reading Cochrane reviews. Many of the principles and methods described here are appropriate for systematic reviews applied to other types of research and to systematic reviews of interventions undertaken by others. It is hoped therefore that this book will be invaluable to all those who want to understand the role of systematic reviews, critically appraise published reviews or perform reviews themselves.