Evidence strategy · Illustrative scenario
Ranking evidence gaps before funding studies
Twenty-two study ideas competed for a constrained budget, most supported by advocacy rather than transparent criteria. Scoring made the trade-offs explicit.
The problem
Twenty-two proposed studies competed for a constrained evidence budget. Selection was driven largely by who argued most persuasively, and there was no shared way to compare a registry against a qualitative study against a treatment-pattern analysis.
What we did
Ranked six evidence gaps by patient, clinical and strategic value, then scored ten concepts against patient relevance, scientific value, decision impact, feasibility, time-to-answer and risk — with the scoring done as a group rather than centrally.
What changed
Three concepts advanced: natural-history real-world evidence, a treatment-pattern study, and qualitative patient-burden work. The duplication in the remainder was avoided rather than quietly funded.
22
Concepts proposed
6
Evidence gaps ranked
10
Concepts formally scored
3
Advanced to funding
How it was measured
Scores are comparative, not absolute — the scorecard ranks concepts against each other within one budget cycle. A concept advancing does not imply it was executed; it means it passed the funding gate.
Artifacts
Evidence gap map · concept scorecard · integrated evidence plan · investment pitch