Permanent record
RIR-3061 · Logged 14 October 2026
Do Cochrane research gaps on HIV, TB and maternal health lead to new trials in Southern Africa?
Systematic reviews end with implications for research, but these statements are often vague, and it is rarely checked whether anyone acts on them. The idea links research needs stated in Cochrane reviews on HIV, tuberculosis and maternal health to later registered trials in Southern Africa, and tests whether specifically worded needs are taken up more often.
In plain words
Large health reviews end by listing what we still do not know. This study would follow those lists for HIV, tuberculosis and mothers' health, and see whether anyone in Southern Africa then ran the trials they called for.
Primary research question
To what extent are the research needs stated in Cochrane reviews on HIV, tuberculosis and maternal health followed by registered trials in Southern Africa, and are specifically worded needs taken up more often than general ones?
Knowledge gap
What remains worth asking
Clarke et al. (2007) found that almost all Cochrane reviews call for more research but few specify it fully. Later audits, including two with South African authors (Mbuagbaw et al., 2016; Ruzive et al., 2024), assess how these statements are written, but not whether they lead to trials in the region.
Potential contribution
Why it may matter
Knowing which kinds of stated research need lead to trials would help review authors write recommendations that local researchers and funders can act on.
Academic placement
Academic fields and topic tags
Study frame: Cochrane reviews on HIV, tuberculosis and maternal health over a defined period, linked to trials in the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry and other registries. · Method signals: Document analysis, Trial-registry linkage, Descriptive statistics
Possible study pathways
One question, different levels
Honours
Take one disease area and check a sample of review recommendations against the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry.
Research master’s
Compare uptake across the three areas and test whether specific recommendations are taken up more often.
Doctoral
Add interviews with trialists and funders on how review recommendations shape their agendas.
- originality
- Moderate
- methodology
- Moderate
- Data access
- Accessible
- ethics
- Accessible
Quality and audit
84/100 quality
Safeguard-based audit was not recorded under the prior standard.
- Builds on, and is distinct from, existing audits
- Accessible public data
- Direct regional relevance
This older record can be checked against the current standard on request. It changes only if every academic gate and independent safeguard passes.
Sign-in required · uses one AI creditProvenance
Research Idea curation
- DOI and bibliographic metadata independently resolved through Crossref
- The abstract reports how often reviews specify research needs
- The uptake study is an inferred direction
The public contributor code contains no name or account email.
APA 7 source
Clarke, L., Clarke, M., & Clarke, T. (2007). How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 12(2), 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581907780279648
Abstract: results on implications for research
This is an AI-inferred direction. The source authors did not state it as a recommendation.
Open source ↗