The power of gap analyses in driving medical discovery

Despite the wealth of information being generated and integrated into our rapidly transforming clinical healthcare landscape, significant unmet needs and research gaps remain. (1) Gaps in scientific knowledge and clinical trial data are particularly problematic in rare diseases, with over 90% lacking a clinically approved therapeutic. (2) It is valuable to identify these research gaps to guide future clinical trials, study endpoints, and policymaking, ultimately improving health outcomes for people living with disease. (1)

A gap analysis of scientific literature is a systematic method used to identify insufficient areas in existing research within a particular therapy area. Researchers conduct these analyses to recognise inconsistencies between study findings, identify uncertainties—such as the effects of treatments on different or underserved patient populations—and highlight areas for improvement in healthcare research. Moreover, gap analyses can help determine how effectively ongoing research aligns with current clinical practice needs. (3)

For example, it has been identified that only one-third of the research evidence informing primary care guidelines is routinely adhered to. To address this issue, Lau and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review to summarise the barriers and facilitators to understand why these guidelines were overlooked and guide greater adherence. By analysing this gap, they developed recommendations to support the implementation of guidelines in clinical practice and policy, serving as a real-world example of how research gap analyses can drive meaningful changes in clinical practice for the benefit of patients. (4)

While various methodologies exist to determine research gaps in healthcare, there is no universally accepted standard or best practice. Nevertheless, previous studies describe conducting an initial comprehensive literature review by searching relevant databases such as PubMed to define key inclusion and exclusion criteria and to establish the number and scope of existing publications. In turn, it is common to perform qualitative and quantitative analyses, such as thematic and frequency analysis, to categorise the findings and identify gaps in the literature. Finally, the relevance and significance of identified gaps should be evaluated to inform future research priorities. (5)

Alongside technological advancements, the role of big data and artificial intelligence is growing, reducing the time and resources needed to identify research gaps. Leveraging tools such as machine learning to analyse large datasets can automate literature gap analyses, driving discovery in the healthcare industry to deliver optimal patient care. (6) Moreover, the benefit of wider stakeholder engagement is becoming increasingly recognised in gap analyses—involving patients, advocates, clinicians, researchers, funders, and policymakers in the process helps to ensure that identified gaps and future research objectives are actionable and relevant for all. (5,7)

To ensure the results of a gap analysis are translated into actionable research strategies, such as clinical trials or policy initiatives, key findings must be shared with the wider pharmaceutical and scientific community through academic journals, white papers, or presentations. Further, reports or publications should be tailored to different audiences to ensure that recommendations for action are clear, making the next steps more accessible. (5)

At Synthesis, we apply our expert medical writing skills to run scoping literature searches and identify critical research gaps. Through publications that disseminate and elevate the findings of gap analyses, we aim to guide future clinical trials and inform policy, fostering systematic change that benefits diverse stakeholders. Contact us at info@synthesishealth.co.uk to explore how we can help you perform comprehensive gap analyses and effectively share outputs across the industry. Together, we can standardise the adoption of gap analysis in healthcare research, driving meaningful progress in medical discovery for all.

References

1. Naqvi WM, Gabr M, Arora SP, Mishra GV, Pashine AA, Quazi Syed Z. Bridging, Mapping, and Addressing Research Gaps in Health Sciences: The Naqvi-Gabr Research Gap Framework. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e55827. Published 2024 Mar 8. doi:10.7759/cureus.55827

2. Austin CP, Cutillo CM, Lau LPL, et al. Future of Rare Diseases Research 2017-2027: An IRDiRC Perspective. Clin Transl Sci. 2018;11(1):21-27. doi:10.1111/cts.12500

3. Gillespie CS, Fung KW, Alam AM, et al. How does research activity align with research need in chronic subdural haematoma: a gap analysis of systematic reviews with end-user selected knowledge gaps. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2023;165(7):1975-1986. doi:10.1007/s00701-023-05618-2

4. Lau R, Stevenson F, Ong BN, et al. Achieving change in primary care--causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews. Implement Sci. 2016;11:40. Published 2016 Mar 22. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4

5. Nyanchoka L, Tudur-Smith C, Thu VN, Iversen V, Tricco AC, Porcher R. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:99-110. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.01.005

6. Alowais SA, Alghamdi SS, Alsuhebany N, et al. Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):689. Published 2023 Sep 22. doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04698-z

7. Martinez J, Wong C, Piersol CV, Bieber DC, Perry BL, Leland NE. Stakeholder engagement in research: a scoping review of current evaluation methods. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8(15):1327-1341. doi:10.2217/cer-2019-0047