Research Opportunity Observatory
A small collection of research investigation briefs. Each explains a possible direction, the checks needed, and why it may not justify a new project.
Starter edition · 29 October 2026. These are source-informed methodological prompts, not completed systematic searches or verified claims of novelty. We publish the date and scope so you can judge how much verification remains. Client-commissioned ideas are not published here.
Does follow-up timing change the question a review answers?
Question to investigate: In a defined clinical area, do published reviews distinguish short-term and longer-term outcomes consistently?
A review can contain studies with the same outcome label but different follow-up windows. Mapping those windows may reveal that a single pooled number answers several different questions.
How to verify the opportunity
Choose one narrow population and intervention. Identify current reviews and protocols, extract their outcome definitions and follow-up windows, then determine whether a new mapping exercise would add useful information.
Uncertainty: This is a methodological investigation prompt, not a verified clinical evidence gap. A new review may be unnecessary if a recent synthesis already resolves the issue.
Cochrane Handbook: synthesis and heterogeneityAre missing outcomes changing the interpretation?
Question to investigate: For a specified set of studies, how clearly are missing outcomes and the assumptions used to handle them reported?
Two analyses may use the same model yet rely on different assumptions about participants without measured outcomes. A structured reporting map can identify what is known and what needs author clarification.
How to verify the opportunity
Define the study set and the reporting fields before extraction. Distinguish inadequate reporting from evidence of biased conduct. Check for existing methodological reviews and avoid treating a reporting checklist as a risk-of-bias score.
Uncertainty: This brief does not establish that any named study is biased. Clinical conclusions require the full evidence and an appropriate methodological assessment.
EQUATOR: STROBE and the limits of reporting checklistsCould a planned secondary analysis use a Registered Report?
Question to investigate: Is there a participating journal whose Registered Report policy fits a secondary-data question before its outcomes are examined?
A methods-first submission can focus the research discussion on the question and plan. Whether this is possible depends on the journal and on what the investigators already know about the data.
How to verify the opportunity
Document data access and prior analyses honestly, check current journal guidance, and discuss eligibility before investing in a full Stage 1 manuscript.
Uncertainty: This is a publication-route opportunity to assess, not a research-gap claim or a promise of journal acceptance.
Center for Open Science: Registered ReportsCheck an opportunity before committing
Record existing reviews and protocols, search dates, eligible evidence, access constraints, and what a new project would add. A well-supported decision to stop is useful too.
Download the evidence-verification worksheet
Request an assessment of your own idea · Open the pooling planner