Evidence gap map

What you have vs what payers and HTA are likely to ask, with a literature review underneath.

Proof·Portal + documents

Shortlist it, send it over — we come back with the shape we'd actually recommend.

What it is

What evidence gap map actually is.

A literature review run to a defined question, targeted or systematic depending on the agreed protocol and scope, mapped against what payers and HTA agencies are likely to ask, with the gaps scored and a ranked study shortlist that closes the ones worth closing.

Built for HEOR and access teams that need a defensible answer to 'what evidence are we missing?' before commissioning a study programme, and the discipline to commission against the answer rather than the wish list. Timing depends on the review type, the size of the literature base and the review requirements.

What you get
  • Literature review report with full search and screening provenance, to the agreed protocol
  • Evidence vs demand map per agency and payer
  • Gap register scored on strength, challenge profile and economic stake
  • Ranked study shortlist with sizing, feasibility and sequence
  • Working read-out for HEOR and access leadership
Build a scope of work

Add the pieces you'd want and we'll build a shortlist you can review, reorder and send over. No pricing wall, no commitment — we come back with what we'd actually recommend, including anything you don't need.

How it works

Approach, modules, delivery.

Move through the tabs to see how the work runs, what it's made of and what lands at the end.

Inputs

  • Existing evidence base and clinical study programme
  • Payer and HTA expectations in the lead indications
  • Targeted or systematic literature review scope

Method

A scoped sprint that runs the literature review, maps existing evidence against what payers and HTA agencies actually demand, scores the gaps and ranks the studies that would close them by impact, cost and feasibility. The output is a ranked shortlist with sizing and a recommended sequence, the input to the integrated evidence plan.

Assumptions

  • Review scope (TLR vs full SLR) is agreed up-front.
  • Internal stakeholders can attend the gap-prioritisation workshop.

Limitations

  • A gap analysis identifies and ranks; commissioning the studies is downstream work.
Scope builder

Think this belongs in your scope?

Add it alongside anything else that fits, then send the shortlist over. We'll reply with the shape we'd recommend — sequence included, and the parts we think you can skip.

Build what comes next.

Whether you need growth, answers or capability, VISFO helps you move earlier and faster.