Do we need systematic reviews of research priority setting? A proposal for a new concept on conducting systematic reviews of research priority setting exercises

With the increasing number of research priority setting (RPS) exercises, systematic reviews synthesising their findings have also grown in prevalence. While these reviews o er a structured way to compare methodologies, identify underrepresented stakeholder groups, and guide funding decisions, conventional systematic review methodologies designed primarily for clinical and health research often fail to capture the complexity, contextual nuances, and participatory nature of RPS. In this commentary, we critically examine these limitations and propose methodological adaptations to enhance the relevance and utility of systematic