gms | German Medical Science

Introduction: Horizon scanning involves the systematic examination of information sources to detect early signs of significant developments. However, identifying and retrieving published horizon scanning reports from bibliographic databases can be difficult due to inconsistent terminology and reporting methods. This lack of standardization hinders dissemination of horizon scanning intelligence and increases research waste. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and its extensions enhances transparency and completeness in evidence synthesis, but no such guidelines exist for horizon scans. This work aims to develop a preliminary checklist for horizon scanning reports.

Methods: A working group comprised of horizon scanning, evidence synthesis, and information specialists was formed at the Innovation Observatory (IO). The group met three times to outline objectives, refine methods, and build the checklist. In the first meeting, the group set its goals and procedures. During the second meeting, they used the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr) as a framework to evaluate 25 horizon scanning reports conducted between 2017 and 2024. The group assessed the relevance of each PRISMA-Scr checklist item. In the third meeting, they proposed additional items based on their review and achieved consensus on the new checklist.

Results: The resulting checklist contains 27 essential items and additional optional items. It includes three new essential components not found in PRISMA-Scr: “Stakeholder description” in the introduction, “Scope” in the methods, and “Technology characteristics” in the results sections. Furthermore, the checklist was adapted to shift the focus from evidence, as in PRISMA-Scr, to the detection of signals, aligning with the purpose of horizon scanning.

Discussion: Horizon scanning is crucial for health technology assessment and healthcare policymaking. However, outputs often lack transparency in their reporting of methods, scope, and results, which limits their dissemination and use. This work aims to address some of these challenges by providing a framework that ensures methodological rigor, improving value to decision makers, clinicians and other stakeholders. Although the checklist has been validated internally, further external validation is needed. The next steps will involve external testing and eventual publication of the results.

Conclusion: This prototype checklist addresses a clear methodological gap and is a s step toward supporting horizon scanning research, standardizing and enhancing output visibility, and ensuring they meet the methodological standards required for broader dissemination and publication.