Figure 2 is the Future Research Needs process. We identified and recruited 12 stakeholders at the same time that we identified evidence gaps and methods-related issues from the original comparative effectiveness review (CER) by O'Connor and colleagues. We conducted one-on-one interviews with six stakeholders who accepted our invitation to participate. They helped us confirm the list of important methods-related issues, revise the list of research gaps within the scope of the original CER and identifiy reseach gaps outside the scope of the original CER; all were confirmed by five of the six stakeholders. We reframed the evidence gaps as research questions and developed an online prioritization questionnaire and identified and recruited an additional 10 stakeholders to participate in the prioritization activity. Six stakeholders completed the online prioritization quesionnaire and identified five high-priority research questions from the list of 37 that were within the scope of the original CER. We conducted comprehensive literature searches to identify any ongoing studies that may answer these high-priority research questions, as well as potential funding opportunities to support future projects. We also developed a list of potential study designs to consider when developing a research protocol or funding opportunity that would answer these five research questions.

Figure 2Future Research Needs process

Abbreviation: CER=comparative effectiveness review

From: Methods

Cover of Future Research Needs for the Comparative Effectiveness of Breathing Exercises and/or Retraining Techniques in the Treatment of Asthma
Future Research Needs for the Comparative Effectiveness of Breathing Exercises and/or Retraining Techniques in the Treatment of Asthma [Internet].
Future Research Needs Papers, No. 18.
Patnode CD, Burda BU, Whitlock EP.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.