This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Reviews (135) Reviews on Public Health Technology and Innovation (86) Electronic/Mobile Data Capture, Internet-based Survey & Research Methodology (1000) Information Retrieval (348) JMIR Theme Issue: COVID-19 Special Issue (2555) Knowledge Translation and Implementation Science (516)

Published on in Vol 14 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/70323, first published .
Horizon Scanning Methods for Health Care Technology Innovation Identification: Rapid Scoping Review of Patent Research Studies

Horizon Scanning Methods for Health Care Technology Innovation Identification: Rapid Scoping Review of Patent Research Studies

Horizon Scanning Methods for Health Care Technology Innovation Identification: Rapid Scoping Review of Patent Research Studies

Authors of this article:

Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral1 Author Orcid Image ;   Erin Pennock2 Author Orcid Image ;   Olushola Ewedairo1 Author Orcid Image ;   Elizabeth Green1 Author Orcid Image ;   James Elgey1 Author Orcid Image ;   Andrew Mkwashi1 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    1NIHR Innovation Observatory, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, The Catalyst Room 3.12, 3 Science Square Newcastle Helix, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

    2Center for Cancer, Population Health Sciences Insitute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

    *all authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, MSc


    Background: Patents are an early sign of innovation, yet their role in horizon scanning for health care remains unclear.

    Objective: This study investigates the role of, and methods for, patent analysis in advancing health care technology innovation in a sector that is characterized by diverse health care technologies and significant research investment. Patents are critical early indicators of innovation, supporting horizon scanning and weak signal detection. The study aimed to identify intellectual property sources, evaluate methods for patent retrieval and analysis, and outline objectives for using patent data to anticipate trends and inform health care strategies.

    Methods: A rapid scoping review was conducted following Cochrane Rapid Review Methods recommendations and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with a preregistered protocol on the Open Science Framework. Searches in Embase, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science targeted records published 2020 onward to capture the most recent sources, methods, and tools. Three independent reviewers screened studies using Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute). We included any study type published since 2020 that provided patent sources data, methods, and tools applied to the study of health care technologies. Our data extraction included bibliographic details, study characteristics, and methodological information. Risk of bias assessments were not undertaken. Narrative and tabular methods, supplemented by visual charts, were used to synthesize findings.

    Results: Our searches identified 1741 studies, of which 124 were included after title, abstract, and full-text screening, with 54% being original research, 43.5% reviews, and the remainder being conference abstracts (2.5%). Most studies (68%) relied solely on patent databases, while others searched the gray and published literature. Research objectives of the included studies were grouped into 10 themes, with trend analysis (50%) and the provision of recommendations for future research, policy, and strategy development (20%) being the most common. Our review identified up to 47 patent databases, with 27% of studies using multiple sources. Whenever time limits were reported, the mean time horizon for patent searches was 24.6 years, ranging from 1900 to 2019. Automated approaches, used in 33% (n=43) of studies, frequently used tools such as Gephi (Gephi Consortium) for network visualization. Disease mapping based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence classification indicated that cancer (19%) and respiratory conditions (16%), particularly COVID-19, were key areas.

    Conclusions: Patent data are valuable for identifying technological trends and informing policy and research strategies. While patents provide crucial insights into emerging technologies, inconsistent deduplication practices across studies pose the risk of data inflation, accentuating the need for transparency and rigor. Finally, this review emphasized the importance of data transformation and visualization in detecting emerging trends, with Python and R being the most commonly used programming languages for developing custom tools.

    Interact J Med Res 2025;14:e70323

    doi:10.2196/70323

    Keywords

    horizon scanning; patent analysis; medtech; rapid scoping review; health care innovation 


    According to the World Intellectual Property Office, a patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention [1]. From the moment a patent is filed, a full disclosure of the invention to a patent office would have occurred [1]. This information will be made available to the public in due course and often prior to the patent being granted [2]. In the health care technology context, patented innovations may include new pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, and medical devices. Often, inventors will apply for patents before clinical trials are initiated to protect the intellectual property of the innovative technology in the trial. However, in the case of low-risk medical devices, where clinical trials are not always conducted, patents may be one of the few indications of a new innovative product before it is introduced to the market. Therefore, patents may be considered as one of the first signs of innovation and are often searched in horizon scanning studies alone or in combination with other sources of weak signal detection [3].

    However, with the complexity of some types of health care technologies such as medical devices, as well as the advent of artificial intelligence and its integration into health care technologies, it is quite difficult to identify early signs of innovation in a timely manner. Some digital applications, for instance, evolve rather rapidly, while most class 1 (low risk) medical devices do not undergo clinical trials. Yet, these technologies serve as a primary source of weak signal detection for emerging health care technologies used by the Innovation Observatory (IO), the UK national horizon scanning and research intelligence body, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research [4].

    Furthermore, a thorough understanding of the health care technology development pathway from ideation to market is imperative to support early warning and alert systems which will, in turn, help inform strategic decision-making, the formulation of health policy, the allocation of research and development funds, and play a vital role in anticipating regulatory challenges associated with emerging technologies. Despite previous horizon scanning and forecast studies conducted in the context of the UK health care horizon scanning needs, it remains unclear how patent analysis methods are being used in forecasting technology emergence globally and how and whether current horizon scanning methods can be enhanced by the regular use of patent analysis studies [5].

    Anticipating health care technology innovation before market entry is a key challenge for horizon scanning activities. However, the role of patent landscape analysis within existing horizon scanning methods remains underexplored. For instance, could routine patent analysis help identify emerging MedTech opportunities earlier, thereby enabling more proactive innovation support? Might it also inform the development of regulatory frameworks to reduce delays in technology adoption? To assess the potential of integrating patent analysis into existing horizon scanning practices, we reviewed recent literature on patent studies related to health care technologies. The study had 3 main aims: to identify key intellectual property sources, such as patent databases; to examine methods used for patent retrieval and analysis; and to determine the primary purposes for using patent analysis in this context. The findings aim to support the standardization of weak signal detection and offer a methodological foundation for integrating patent landscape analysis [6] into horizon scanning, both within the IO and among wider national and international bodies, particularly for early-stage technologies.


    Overview

    A rapid scoping review was undertaken to efficiently examine the published literature and answer the predetermined research questions on methods, tools, and purpose for patent landscape analysis [7]. We used a scoping review approach to explore the breadth of the subject area and to map the recent patent analysis methods research landscape, while also accelerating some of the traditionally more time-consuming aspects of a systematic review by embracing the recommendations for rapid reviews set out by the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods working group [8]. The use of rapid methods applied to scoping reviews has been documented as an increasing trend in big umbrella reviews due to the efficiency gain [9,10]. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews for the reporting of items relevant to this review. This review did not quality appraise the included studies as this was considered out of scope for the objectives of this project. A preagreed protocol outlining the methods and objectives of this rapid scoping review was registered in the Open Science Framework in June 2024 [7].

    Inclusion Criteria

    To outline the inclusion criteria for this rapid scoping review, we followed the Cochrane protocol guide. The review was structured based on the SDMO framework (study type, data, methods, outcomes) [11]. Studies eligible for inclusion needed to meet the following criteria: (1) any type of study or conference abstract in English language, (2) data related to the health care technology were reported, (3) methods and tools used for the analysis were mentioned, and (4) all reported outcomes were considered for inclusion although they were not deemed mandatory for the inclusion of studies in this review in line with the recommendation from Higgins et al [11].

    Search Strategy

    Following the recommendation for rapid searches, a targeted search strategy was devised and run in Embase (Ovid), which contains MEDLINE, by an experienced information specialist and checked against the PRESS checklist [12]. Our search strategy consisted of subject heading terms in combination with text words in title and abstract. Given the specificity of the topic and to maximize the sensitivity of our searches, we focused on the Method concept (Patent) from the SDMO framework outlined above. This concept was searched in combination with terms for the different types of studies such as “trend,” “analysis,” “landscape,” “mining” or more broadly “research.” This search was then translated and run in 2 more databases selected for their comprehensive coverage of technological and scientific topics: IEEE Xplore digital library and Web of Science. We searched in the title, abstract, and keyword fields. Time limits were imposed to retrieve records published since 2020 to capture the most contemporary tools and sources. Due to the lack of current guidelines for the application of time limits in searches for rapid reviews, this was a pragmatic decision informed by the recently updated Cochrane Rapid Review Methods guidance and agreed with the information specialist [8]. This approach ensured that our review remained focused on the latest developments and advancements in the field, providing the most relevant and up-to-date information. No language limit or any other limits were used. Records were downloaded into Endnote 20 (Clarivate Analytics) for deduplication. Full search strategies with results are provided in Multimedia Appendix 1.

    Data Collection

    Deduplicated results were single screened at the title and abstract stage by 3 independent reviewers (SGGM, EP, and OE) separately using Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute [QCRI]), a screening software for systematic reviews [13]. Consultation between reviewers was practiced at this stage on multiple occasions. In case of doubt due to ambiguity of titles or lack of clear reporting in abstracts, records were included for full-text screening. At full-text screening, the same 3 reviewers proceeded independently to single screen the full texts for inclusion. One-to-one consultation was exercised regularly throughout this process, and disagreements were resolved by checking with a fourth reviewer.

    Data Extraction

    To ensure data extraction followed the recommendations of rapid review methods, an abbreviated data extraction form was developed to meet the agreed objectives of this review and was reported in the published protocol [7]. The original data extraction form was then piloted by the reviewers testing the relevance of data fields deemed for extraction. This step did not result in further alterations to the original data extraction form. Three independent reviewers extracted data, and one independently assessed its quality. We extracted bibliographic details; study-related characteristics such as the type of technologies, health condition, and objectives of the study; methods-related data including the sources searched, the geographical coverage of the sources, the time period searched, and the use, if any, of automated methods and tools.

    Data Synthesis

    We used narrative and tabulated methods for summarizing and synthesizing data collected during our data extraction stage. Whenever possible, charts have been used to visually present information relevant to the objectives of this study. We used the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) disease classification system [14] to map the 96 studies (75%) [15-110] that reported specific disease indications or population groups. A total of 178 separate topic references throughout the 96 papers were extracted and mapped against the NICE classification. Despite some second-level disease indications (eg, COVID-19) that can be mapped to multiple NICE first-level disease classifications, each mention of disease was only mapped once to avoid inflation of results.


    Overview

    Our searches identified a total of 1741 records. After deduplication, 1505 remained. We sought the full text of 261 records, of which only 124 were considered for inclusion in this review. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA flowchart of the retrieval and selection process for this review.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart for study selection via searching databases. Gray shading denotes rapid methods, for example, reduced number of databases searched, single screening, and single data extraction. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

    The selection criteria focused on relevance and the potential to contribute to the review’s objectives. This rigorous process ensured the reliability and comprehensiveness of the findings presented.

    Study Characteristics

    From the 124 studies included, 67 (54%) [15-61,111-130] were original research papers, 54 (43.5%) [62-107,131-138] corresponded to reviews, 2 were conference papers [108,109], and 1 short presentation [110]. The majority of sources considered patent databases only (85, 68%) [15-17,111,112,19-26,113,28-32,114,115,35-42,116-118,120,121,43-47,49-51,52-56,124-128,57-60,62,130,65,66,69-72,132,76,77,79-82,87,91,133,94,96,135,98-100,102,104,105,108,110] with the rest of the included studies using a combination of different sources. These 124 studies were published in 94 different journals. Nature Biotechnology was the most frequent journal in our dataset (n=9 studies) [15,23,24,52-54,123-125]. A table outlining the characteristics of the included studies is presented in Multimedia Appendix 2 [15-138].

    Research Objectives of Included Studies

    The objectives of each paper were extracted verbatim directly from the papers. In order to analyze these, and in line with recommendations on how to analyze and present data from scoping reviews [139], 3 reviewers (SG, EP, and OE) grouped them by common topics. This produced a final list of 9 topics or reasons (Table 1). These were presented and agreed with the rest of the review team. The most common reason reported for the study of patents (62 studies, 50%) [15-17,19,21,24,27,28,111,113,30,31,36,37,39-42,114,116,119,120,46,47,53,54,60,61,65-68,123,126,129-132,72-74,77-79,81,82,87,90,93,133,134,94,97-99,101-103,105,107,108,110] was to investigate trends within specific fields, followed by those aiming to provide recommendations for future research, policy, and strategy development (25 studies, 20%) [20,22,23,25,26,32,33,35,44,121,58,62,127,69,70,76,80,84-86,89,91,92,100,135]. Two other frequent objectives were: the study of specific patented technologies (13 studies, 10%) [18,29,112,34,115,38,48,57,64,71,75,106,109] and the identification of emerging technologies (13 studies, 10%) [18,29,112,34,38,115,48,57,64,71,75,106,109]. Less frequent objectives included the development of methodological frameworks for patent analysis (4 studies) [56,88,117,122], analysis of global patent trends (3 studies) [50,96,137], cross-sectoral applications of emerging technologies (1 study) [55], summarize recent research in specific fields (1 study) [138], analyze patent application pipeline (1 study) [49], and develop patent research methods (1 study) [118].

    Table 1. Reasons for conducting a patent research study by themes.
    Patent analysis objectiveNumber of studies
    Identify and analyze patent trends62
    Provide future directions25
    Identify emerging technologies13
    Analyze patented technologies13
    Methodological framework4
    Compare global patent trends3
    Cross-sectoral applications1
    Summarize recent research1
    Analyze patent application pipeline1
    Develop patent research methods1

    Sources of Patent Data

    Eighty-five studies [15-17,19-26,28-32,35-42,111-118,120,121,43-47,49-56,124-128,57-60,62,65,66,69-72,76,77,79-82,87,91,94,96,98-100,102,105,108,110,130,132,133,135] used patents alone, whereas 39 studies [18,27,33,34,48,119,122,123,61,63,64,67,68,129,131,73-75,78,83-86,88-90,92,93,95,97,134,101,103,106,107,109,136-138] used various sources that included gray literature, research papers, and clinical trials. Two studies [89,96] did not report which patent database had been used. More than 27% (34/124) of papers described the use of more than 1 patent database. As such, across the 124 papers, there were 47 databases listed. Table 2 presents the distribution of the top 10 named databases across all papers.

    Table 2. Top 10 patent databases used in the included studies.
    Patent databaseNumber of papers
    Derwent Innovation30
    USPTOa24
    Espacenet20
    The Lens20
    PatentScope13
    WIPOb13
    EPOc10
    Google Patents10
    Orbit6
    PatSeer5

    aUSPTO: United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    bWIPO: World Intellectual Property Office.

    cEPO: European Patent Office.

    Time Horizons of Patent Scans

    Of the 124 included papers, 44 (35.5%) papers [15,22,23,111,36,38,42-45,47-49,52,53,55,56,58,60,61,123,124,126,130,64,66,73,75,76,78-80,83,85,88,91,93,95,99,100,104,108,109,134] did not report the time period searched during patent analysis or gave incomplete timelines with only an end date leaving 80 papers [16-21,24-35,37,39-41,46,50,51,54,57,59,62,63,65,67-72,74,77,81,82,84,86,87,89,90,92,94,96-98,101-103,105-107,110,112-122,125,127-129,131-133,135-138] with completed data on time horizons.

    The mean time length covered in those 80 papers was 24.6 years (SD 2.37) [16-21,24-35,112-117,37,39-41,46,50,51,54,118-122,125,127,57,59,62,63,65,67-72,74,77,128,129,131-133,81,82,84,86,87,89,90,92,94,96-98,101-103,105-107,135-138,110]. 7 papers [21,29,41,46,91,106,131] searched a time period of over 50 years with the broadest time period searched being from 1900 to 2019 [140]. Around 19% (15/78) of papers with a reported time horizon searched a period between 3 months and 10 years. Up to 15% (12/78) of papers searched a 20-year period. It was common for authors to backdate searches to the start of the year 2000, although the rationale was not provided.

    Methods and Automated Approaches Used

    Of the 124 included papers, 43 (34.6%) studies [15-35,111-117,62-72,131,132,108,109] reported the use of automated or semiautomated approaches during patent analysis. In these 41 papers, there were 43 unique tools that were used for patent analysis. Figure 2 presents all tools categorized into whether the tool was available as an in-built analysis module by the patent database searched (IN-BUILT), a custom patent analysis script (CUSTOM), or a commercially offered tool (COMMERCIAL).

    ‎
    Figure 2. Reported tools used for automated or semiautomated analysis.

    Some studies mentioned more than 1 tool, a full account of each tool used and their frequency distribution across the 41 studies is available in Table 3. These tools were used mainly in 4 different methods: data mining (understood as the statistical technique of processing raw data in a structured form), text mining (the part of data mining which involves processing of text from documents) [141], data transformation (the process of converting and cleaning raw data from one data source to meet the requirements of its new location) [142], and network visualization (understood as the graphical representations of network devices, network metrics, and data flows) [143]. Network visualization was by far the most popular method, used in 50% of the tools described. The most popular tool for network visualization was the freely available software Gephi (Gephi Consortium), used in 7 separate studies [21-26,113]. Table 3 presents a breakdown of these tools classified by their type and the number of studies that used them.

    Table 3. Full account of all named tools used for automated or semiautomated approaches for patent analysis from 41 papers that reported their use.
    ToolNumber of studies used inTool typeMethodReference
    R – tidyverse2CUSTOMNetwork visualization[15,16]
    R – patentr1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[116]
    R – cowplot1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[16]
    R – gridExtra1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[16]
    R – lubridate1CUSTOMData transformation[16]
    R – magrittr1CUSTOMData transformation[16]
    R – linkcomm1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[16]
    R – trend1CUSTOMData transformation[16]
    Python – pandas3CUSTOMData transformation[16,17,111]
    Python – patentpy2CUSTOMData transformation[16,116]
    Python – seaborn.clustermap1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[62]
    Python-based Patent Enrichment Tool (PEMT)1CUSTOMData mining/data transformation[62]
    Python – gensim1CUSTOMData transformation[112]
    Python – matplotlib1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[111]
    Latent Dirichlet Allocation algorithm1CUSTOMText mining[18]
    Word2Vec model1CUSTOMNetwork visualization[18]
    Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) model1CUSTOMText mining[19]
    Generative Topographic Modeling1CUSTOMNetwork visualization/data transformation[20]
    Gephi7COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[21-26,113]
    VOSviewer4COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[27,64,108,131]
    Open Refine2COMMERCIALData transformation[64,113]
    Questel-Orbit2COMMERCIALData mining[28,132]
    Vantage Point2COMMERCIALText mining[29,30]
    UCINET 61COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[111]
    Tableau1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[21]
    Patentics1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[65]
    Pajek1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[22]
    Orange-Data Mining1COMMERCIALText mining[66]
    Cytoscape1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[26]
    Harzing’s Publish or Perish1COMMERCIALData mining[67]
    ITG Insight1COMMERCIALText mining/network visualization[114]
    OriginPro1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[131]
    Patsnap1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[31]
    PatentInspiration1COMMERCIALNetwork visualization[68]
    NoteExpress1COMMERCIALData transformation[24]
    Derwent: ThemeScape Map2IN-BUILTNetwork visualization[69,70]
    Derwent: Data Analyzer2IN-BUILTData transformation[69,108]
    Lens2IN-BUILTData mining[63,71]
    AcclaimIP1IN-BUILTData mining[32]
    PatentScope1IN-BUILTText mining[33]
    Derwent: Smart Search1IN-BUILTData transformation[115]
    Derwent Innovation1IN-BUILTText mining[34]
    EP full-text search1IN-BUILTData mining[72]

    NICE Disease Classification Mapping

    Of the 124 papers, 28 (22.6%) [111-116,117-122,123-129,130-132,133-138] did not sufficiently refer to any level of NICE classification. Between the remaining 96 papers [15-110], there were 177 specific mentions of NICE guidance categories, which are detailed below (Table 4). Overall, “Cancer” was the most prevalent NICE topic with 19.4% (19/96) of the 124 included studies reporting cancer patents as either the primary or secondary finding. Of the 16.1% of papers [19,26,28,30,31,33,44,76,84,96,100,104] that reported “Respiratory conditions,” 60% (9/15)19,26,30,44,76,84,96,100,104 of these were specific to “COVID-19” or other coronaviruses.

    Table 4. Specific mentions of NICEa disease and other guidance topics as a percentage of 178 NICE guidance topics referenced in the results of 94 papers that reported specific NICE topics in their results.
    NICE guidance (first level)Number of mentionsPercentage of papers
    Cancer2419.4
    Infections2016.1
    Respiratory conditions1915.3
    Diabetes and other endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic conditions118.9
    Injuries, accidents, and wounds118.9
    Neurological conditions118.9
    Blood and immune system conditions108.1
    Cardiovascular conditions97.3
    Oral and dental health97.3
    Skin conditions86.5
    Health and social care delivery86.5
    Digestive tract conditions64.8
    Mental health, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders64.8
    Eye conditions54
    Musculoskeletal conditions54
    Urological conditions43.2
    Chronic and neuropathic pain21.6
    Liver conditions21.6
    Sleep and sleep conditions21.6
    Ear, nose, and throat conditions10.8
    Fertility, pregnancy, and childbirth10.8
    Lifestyle and well-being10.8
    Not reported2822.6

    aNICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.


    Principal Findings

    Our rapid scoping review aimed to explore the recent literature on patent research studies to identify patent sources, tools, and methods used to understand how patent analyses may support horizon scanning methods in the detection of early innovations. To our knowledge, this is the first rapid scoping review focused on methodological approaches for patent research.

    This review has identified several key findings that may be used to inform horizon scanning methods. First, our review has revealed an array of methodological approaches, tools, and reasons why patents are being used to discover signs of innovation. We identified 47 different sources for patent data retrieval with some studies using more than one source per study; for example, clinical trials and published or unpublished literature. The compilation of these sources in this review provides an up-to-date published list of patent data sources and insights into how researchers triangulate patent data with information on how, or whether, the innovation is being used in clinical studies and emerging research. This is an important finding for horizon scanning projects in general, and those undertaken by the IO, with particular value for the prioritization of scalable innovation. Patents alone may not be enough to assess the scalability of innovations in health care services such as the UK NHS. Combining patent data with clinical trials, publications, and clinical development analysis offers a more meaningful approach to evaluating technology adoption potential.

    Second, this study showed that patent data are mostly used in trend analysis, perhaps due to the accessibility to retrospective global patent data. This finding aligns with what we already know about methods used for scanning emerging technologies and predicting innovations [3,144]. However, this review revealed a less common but notable application of using patent analyses to guide future policy, research, and strategy, similar to the “bottom-up” approach of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre for detecting weak signals [145]. Most importantly, this approach can also reveal research gaps, thereby aiding in directing future funding and policies to address these gaps, thus contributing to eliminating health inequities and disparities. These findings will contribute to consolidating the IO’s methodological application of patent trend analysis studies to underpin “the push” or “bottom-up approach” to informing UK national future policy, research, or strategy on emerging innovation trends or identified innovation gaps.

    Third, from our mapping of disease areas, not surprisingly, cancer, respiratory conditions, and infections were the top 3 topics addressed by the included studies. Considering that this rapid scoping review limited the included studies to only those published between 2020 and 2023, it was expected that COVID or, more broadly, respiratory conditions appeared in our dataset quite prominently. However, the focus on cancer technologies may respond to the growing burden of cancer worldwide and its impact on underserved populations [146]. Likewise, the emphasis on infection topics may respond to the antimicrobial resistance crisis that we are currently facing as well as the challenges posed by the growth of communicable diseases worldwide that continue to be the cause of substantial morbidity and mortality [147]. The alignment with real-world health challenges highlights innovators’ responses and reinforces the need for horizon scanning systems to adopt these methods for studying innovation in major health issues.

    Fourth, the analysis showed that tools used for patent data analysis primarily focus on creating graphs and network visualizations, with examples including Gephi [148], VOSViewer (Leiden University) [149], and ThemeScape Map (Derwent Innovation, Clarivate) [150]. Data manipulation tools such as Pandas (Wes McKinney in Python) [151] also played a key role. In addition, Python and R were the most common programming languages used to develop custom tools. Findings from this review highlighted that data transformation and visualization are methods often used for detecting emerging trends. This finding is in line with previously published studies into patent landscaping in the field of life sciences innovation [152]. Since there are no established methodological frameworks for analyzing patent data in horizon scanning, based on these results, it would be reasonable to assume that whenever tools are used for patent data analysis, some level of data transformation (or curation) is needed and therefore this step and the tools needed to undertake it should be part of the repertoire of methods for any horizon scanning practitioner and, more specifically, for the IO’s methods toolkit.

    Finally, our review identified a wide range of technologies for which patent analyses were undertaken (Table 3, Multimedia Appendix 2). Due to the short time frame of our analysis, we could not establish a methodological link between analysis methods and technology types. A longer time frame would have yielded more historical data that could have allowed some trend analysis on patent study methods by technology type. Notwithstanding, our results suggest the broad applicability of patent studies to any type of technology.

    Our study has some limitations. First, we imposed a short time frame for our bibliographic database searches, which may have meant that we missed some relevant methodological studies. However, this was a pragmatic decision justified by the rapid nature of this review. Given the aims and objectives of our review, which consisted of finding methods and sources for patent landscape analysis studies, we do not think that limiting the search to the last 3 years of publication has biased our methodological conclusions; if anything, it has provided the most up-to-date view on tools and methods. Second, a longer time period would have provided more data allowing us to study the link between technology types and methods providing a more holistic view of patent analysis methods. Third, we used single screening to select studies, so we did not assess interrater agreement. While this practical choice may have led to some relevant studies being missed, we believe it would not have significantly affected our overall conclusions. Finally, our review was not able to ascertain if deduplication of data, a critical step to prevent data inflation and ensure accurate analyses of innovation clusters, was addressed by the included studies [152].

    Conclusions

    Our findings highlight a broad range of methodological approaches and tools which may suggest that in the health care technology context, the continuous search for signs of innovation is driving methods and tools development. Our study has shed light on the usefulness and purpose of patent research studies in the context of health care technology innovation, but it has not solved some methodological aspects such as deduplication processes and possible links between technology types and methods. Notwithstanding, when conducting such studies, particular attention should be given to the processes of data manipulation, transformation, and deduplication—especially when integrating multiple data sources—and these methods should be transparently documented and reported in the final output to ensure reproducibility and data quality. Implementing existing guidelines for reporting items for patent landscapes is also strongly recommended [2,153].

    The IO aims to provide a systematic approach to horizon scanning across the 3 horizons of health care technology development: emerging, transitional, and imminent. The findings from this study will support the practice of horizon scanning in the emerging technology horizon. In summary, we expect that the findings from this rapid scoping review would be of value to a wide range of horizon scanning practitioners as well as those planning to undertake patent research studies in the field of health care innovation.

    Acknowledgments

    This study would not have been possible without the support of the Innovation Observatory. We thank Oleta Williams for the Information Specialist support provided for scoping and running the bibliographic databases searches for this rapid scoping review. This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (HSRIC-2016‐10009/Innovation Observatory).

    Data Availability

    The datasets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Authors' Contributions

    SGGM and AM contributed to conceptualization, methodology, supervision, and project administration. SGGM, ER, OE, EG, JE, and AM were involved in data curation, formal analysis, validation, and visualization. All coauthors participated in writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, and approval of the final manuscript.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Search strategies.

    DOCX File, 33 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Characteristics of included studies.

    DOCX File, 284 KB
    Checklist 1

    PRISMA-ScR checklist.

    PDF File, 357 KB
    1. Frequently asked questions: patents. World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). URL: https://www.wipo.int/patents/en/faq_patents.html [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    2. Trippe A. Guidelines for preparing patent landscape reports. World Intellectual Property Office. 2015. URL: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_946.pdf [Accessed 2025-08-03]
    3. Garcia Gonzalez-Moral S, Beyer FR, Oyewole AO, Richmond C, Wainwright L, Craig D. Looking at the fringes of MedTech innovation: a mapping review of horizon scanning and foresight methods. BMJ Open. Sep 14, 2023;13(9):e073730. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Khan S, Fairbairn R, Potter R, Hussain A, Inskip A, Norman G. Horizon scanning methods for identification of new and repurposed medicines for stakeholders in the United Kingdom. Futures & Foresight Sci. Apr 2025;7(1):e210. [CrossRef]
    5. Doos L, Packer C, Ward D, Simpson S, Stevens A. Past speculations of the future: a review of the methods used for forecasting emerging health technologies. BMJ Open. Mar 10, 2016;6(3):e010479. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. van Rijn T, Timmis JK. Patent landscape analysis-contributing to the identification of technology trends and informing research and innovation funding policy. Microb Biotechnol. Apr 2023;16(4):683-696. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Garcia Gonzalez-Moral S, Pennock E, Ewedairo O, Green E, Elgey J, Mkwashi A. Healthcare technology innovation identification: a rapid scoping review of patent research studies to inform horizon scanning methods. Interact J Med Res. Jun 18, 2024. [CrossRef]
    8. Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. Feb 6, 2024;384:e076335. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Campbell F. How to do a rapid scoping review. Cochrane. 2024. URL: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/how-to-do-a-rapid-scoping-review [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    10. Campbell F, Sutton A, Pollock D, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map ('Big Picture Reviews’). BMJ Evid Based Med. Apr 21, 2025:bmjebm-2023-112389. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Guide to the contents of a cochrane protocol and review. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2008:51-79. [CrossRef]
    12. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. Jul 2016;75:40-46. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. Dec 5, 2016;5(1):210. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. NICE guidance. Conditions and diseases. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/conditions-and-diseases [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    15. Mohajel N, Arashkia A. Ebola as a case study for the patent landscape of medical countermeasures for emerging infectious diseases. Nat Biotechnol. Jul 2021;39(7):799-807. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Wadhwa RR, McElderry BM, Yu J, et al. Temporal trends in the United States patent landscape: innovation in cardiology across industry and academia. Cardiol Res. Oct 2023;14(5):334-341. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Rincón-López J, Almanza-Arjona YC, Riascos AP, Rojas-Aguirre Y. When cyclodextrins met data science: unveiling their pharmaceutical applications through network science and text-mining. Pharmaceutics. Aug 19, 2021;13(8):1297. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Shin HJ, Lee S. Identifying areas of technology commercialization in the biomedical sector: an integrated analysis of patents and publications. Presented at: 2022 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET); Aug 7-11, 2022; Portland, OR. [CrossRef]
    19. Durmuşoğlu A, Durmuşoğlu ZDU. Remembering medical ventilators and masks in the days of COVID-19: patenting in the last decade in respiratory technologies. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2022;71:1359-1373. [CrossRef]
    20. Hwang J, Kim KH, Hwang JG, Jun S, Yu J, Lee C. Technological opportunity analysis: assistive technology for blind and visually impaired people. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8689. [CrossRef]
    21. Xin Y, Man W, Yi Z. The development trend of artificial intelligence in medical: a patentometric analysis. Artif Intell Life Sci. Dec 2021;1:100006. [CrossRef]
    22. Cai Y, Zhang X, Zhang K, et al. The global patent landscape of emerging infectious disease monkeypox. BMC Infect Dis. Apr 15, 2024;24(1):403. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Li Q, Xu J, Sun Q, Zhang Z, Hu Y, Yao H. The global patent landscape of HER2-targeted biologics. Nat Biotechnol. Jun 2023;41(6):756-764. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Lyu M, Chen J, Peng Y, et al. The global patent landscape of mRNA for diagnosis and therapy. Nat Biotechnol. Sep 2023;41(9):1193-1199. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Ma J, Pan YH, Su CY. Organization-oriented technology opportunities analysis based on predicting patent networks: a case of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientometrics. Sep 2022;127(9):5497-5517. [CrossRef]
    26. Liu K, Zhang X, Hu Y, et al. What, where, when and how of COVID-19 patents landscape: a bibliometrics review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:925369. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Wang Q, Zhu Q, Li N. A scientometric analysis and visualization of scientific research and technology innovation in needle-free insulin injection from 1974 to 2022. Clin Ther. Sep 2023;45(9):881-888. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Machuca-Martinez F, Amado RC, Gutierrez O. Coronaviruses: a patent dataset report for research and development (R&D) analysis. Data Brief. Apr 2020;30:105551. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Klongthong W, Muangsin V, Gowanit C, Muangsin N. A patent analysis to identify emergent topics and convergence fields: a case study of chitosan. Sustainability. 2021;13(16):9077. [CrossRef]
    30. Devarapalli P, Kumari P, Soni S, Mishra V, Yadav S. Patent intelligence of RNA viruses: implications for combating emerging and re-emerging RNA virus based infectious diseases. Int J Biol Macromol. Oct 31, 2022;219:1208-1215. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Zhang HL, Li YX, Zhou AF, Li Y. New frontier in antiviral drugs for disorders of the respiratory system. Recent Adv Antiinfect Drug Discov. 2022;17(1):2-12. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Altuntas S, Erdogan Z, Dereli T. A clustering-based approach for the evaluation of candidate emerging technologies. Scientometrics. Aug 2020;124(2):1157-1177. [CrossRef]
    33. Yeh TF, Lin C, Sung HC. A review of technological developments in lipid nanoparticle application for mRNA vaccination. Hum Vaccin Immunother. Aug 1, 2023;19(2):2256040. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Abdi S, Kitsara I, Hawley MS, de Witte LP. Emerging technologies and their potential for generating new assistive technologies. Assist Technol. Dec 1, 2021;33(sup1):17-26. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Jeon E, Yoon N, Sohn SY. Exploring new digital therapeutics technologies for psychiatric disorders using BERTopic and PatentSBERTa. Technol Forecast Soc Change. Jan 2023;186:122130. [CrossRef]
    36. Oda T, Oda C. An analysis of the key drivers of the Japanese digital therapeutics patents: a cross‐sectional study. Health Sci Rep. Jun 2023;6(6):e1268. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/23988835/6/6 [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Valadas LAR, Oliveira Filho RD, Lotif MAL, et al. Development and innovation on dental products in Argentina: a technological prospecting based on patents.. Recent Pat Biotechnol. 2021;15(1):3-11. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Juiz PJL, Ferreira LTB, Pires EA, Villarreal CF. Patent mining on the use of antioxidant phytochemicals in the technological development for the prevention and treatment of periodontitis. Antioxidants (Basel). May 3, 2024;13(5):566. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Chartoumpekis DV, Fu CY, Ziros PG, Sykiotis GP. Patent review (2017–2020) of the Keap1/Nrf2 pathway using PatSeer Pro: focus on autoimmune diseases. Antioxidants (Basel). Nov 17, 2020;9(11):1138. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Speziali MG. Cellulose technologies applied to biomedical purposes from the patentometric point of view. Cellulose. Nov 2020;27(17):10095-10117. [CrossRef]
    41. Cho YD, Kim WJ, Ryoo HM, Ku Y. Patent landscape report on dental implants: a technical analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. Dec 2021;23(6):857-863. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/17088208/23/6 [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Sharma R, Sharma R, Singla RK. Drug discovery, diagnostic, and therapeutic trends on Mpox: a patent landscape. Curr Res Biotechnol. 2024;7:100173. [CrossRef]
    43. Tiwari AK, Jaspal D, Deshmukh S, et al. Cheminformatics: a patentometric analysis. Fr Ukr J Chem. 2022;10(1):13-29. [CrossRef]
    44. Bacigalupo ML, Pignataro MF, Scopel CT, Kondratyuk S, Mellouk O, Chaves GC. Unveiling patenting strategies of therapeutics and vaccines: evergreening in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1287542. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Li M, Ren J, Si X, et al. The global mRNA vaccine patent landscape. Hum Vaccin Immunother. Nov 30, 2022;18(6):2095837. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Xiong YH, Xu XN, Zheng B. Patented technologies for schistosomiasis control and prevention filed by Chinese applicants. Infect Dis Poverty. Jun 12, 2021;10(1):84. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Francis N, Ong A, Suhaimi H, Abas PE. Patent landscape review on ankle sprain prevention method: technology updates. Inventions. 2023;8(2):53. [CrossRef]
    48. Wang YH. Exploring Technology-Driven Technology Roadmaps (TRM) for wearable biosensors in healthcare. IRBM. Jun 2024;45(3):100835. [CrossRef]
    49. Ge J. Analysis of patent development status of lipid nanoparticle delivery system for mRNA vaccines. J Chin Pharm Sci. Feb 28, 2023;32(2):112. [CrossRef]
    50. Xu C, Zhu D. The development of marine drugs: a research based on patent analysis. J Coast Res. 2020;110(sp1):271-276. [CrossRef]
    51. Riondato M, Rigamonti D, Martini P, et al. Oldie but goodie: is Technetium-99m still a treasure trove of innovation for medicine? A patents analysis (2000-2022). J Med Chem. Apr 13, 2023;66(7):4532-4547. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Lyu L, Feng Y, Chen X, Hu Y. The global chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy patent landscape. Nat Biotechnol. Dec 2020;38(12):1387-1394. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Braga L, Lopes R, Alves L, Mota F. The global patent landscape of artificial intelligence applications for cancer. Nat Biotechnol. Dec 2023;41(12):1679-1687. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Greenberg A, Cohen A, Grewal M. Patent landscape of brain-machine interface technology. Nat Biotechnol. Oct 2021;39(10):1194-1199. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Lee S, Hwang J, Cho E. Comparing technology convergence of artificial intelligence on the industrial sectors: two-way approaches on network analysis and clustering analysis. Scientometrics. Jan 2022;127(1):407-452. [CrossRef]
    56. Hani U, Chen JW, Holland C, et al. Patent bibliometrics in spinal deformity: the first bibliometric analysis of spinal deformity’s technological literature. Spine Deform. Jan 2024;12(1):25-33. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Liu K, Yang J, Deng J, Fan X, Hu Y. Global patent landscape of benign prostatic hyperplasia drugs. Urology. Aug 2022;166:209-215. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Parihar K, Telang M, Ovhal A. A patent review on strategies for biological control of mosquito vector. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. Nov 24, 2020;36(12):187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Borzova E, Cardeal G, Soperna S, Zhao J, Lepekhova A. 582 The patent landscape analysis of skin bioinks for 3D bioprinting. J Invest Dermatol. Dec 2022;142(12):S281. [CrossRef]
    60. Lee JH, Kim JS, Moon BC, Nam HH. Analysis of trends in patents on insect-derived medicinal materials for skin diseases. Integr Med Res. 2020;9:100617. [CrossRef]
    61. Litvinova O, Bilir A, Parvanov ED, et al. Patent landscape review of non-invasive medical sensors for continuous monitoring of blood pressure and their validation in critical care practice. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1138051. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Gadiya Y, Gribbon P, Hofmann-Apitius M, Zaliani A. Pharmaceutical patent landscaping: a novel approach to understand patents from the drug discovery perspective. Artif Intell Life Sci. Dec 2023;3:100069. [CrossRef]
    63. Litvinova O, Eitenberger M, Bilir A, et al. Patent analysis of digital sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1205903. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Zagoya-López J, Zúñiga-Avilés LA, Vilchis-González AH, Ávila-Vilchis JC. Foot/ankle prostheses design approach based on scientometric and patentometric analyses. Appl Sci (Basel). 2021;11(12):5591. [CrossRef]
    65. Jiang J, Sun J, Huang Z, et al. The state of the art and future trends of root canal files from the perspective of patent analysis: a study design. Biomed Eng Online. Dec 24, 2022;21(1):90. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Patel S, Patel MS, Patel AD, et al. Probiotic formulations: a patent landscaping using the text mining approach. Curr Microbiol. Apr 9, 2022;79(5):152. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Azman AA, Leow ATC, Noor NDM, Noor SAM, Latip W, Ali MSM. Worldwide trend discovery of structural and functional relationship of metallo-β-lactamase for structure-based drug design: a bibliometric evaluation and patent analysis. Int J Biol Macromol. Jan 2024;256(Pt 2):128230. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. Cañete R, Peralta E. Assistive technology to improve collaboration in children with ASD: state-of-the-art and future challenges in the smart products sector. Sensors (Basel). Oct 30, 2022;22(21):8321. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Zhou W, Wang X. Human gene therapy: a patent analysis. Gene. Nov 30, 2021;803:145889. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Kim WJ, Cho YD, Ku Y, Ryoo HM. The worldwide patent landscape of dental implant technology. Biomater Res. Oct 23, 2022;26(1):59. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Bhatnagar P, Law JX, Ng SF. Delivery systems for platelet derived growth factors in wound healing: a review of recent developments and global patent landscape. J Drug Deliv Sci Technol. May 2022;71:103270. [CrossRef]
    72. Gkika DA, Vordos N, Maragakis M, et al. Patents of nanomaterials related with cancer treatment applications. J Nanopart Res. Oct 2020;22(10). [CrossRef]
    73. Litvinova O, Klager E, Tzvetkov NT, et al. Digital pills with ingestible sensors: patent landscape analysis.. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). Aug 19, 2022;15(8):1025. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    74. Maresova P, Krejcar O, Barakovic S, et al. Health–related ICT solutions of smart environments for elderly–systematic review. IEEE Access. 2020;8:54574-54600. [CrossRef]
    75. Wu NJW, Aquilina M, Qian BZ, et al. The application of nanotechnology for quantification of circulating tumour DNA in liquid biopsies: a systematic review. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2023;16:499-513. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    76. Imran M, Fatima W, Alzahrani AK, et al. Development of therapeutic and prophylactic zinc compositions for use against COVID-19: a glimpse of the trends, inventions, and patents. Nutrients. Mar 14, 2022;14(6):1227. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    77. Liu K, Zuo H, Li G, Yu H, Hu Y. Global research on artemisinin and its derivatives: perspectives from patents. Pharmacol Res. Sep 2020;159:105048. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    78. Burgio V, Bei J, Rodriguez Reinoso M, et al. Mechanical stapling devices for soft tissue repair: a review of commercially available linear, linear cutting, and circular staplers. Appl Sci (Basel). 2024;14(6):2486. [CrossRef]
    79. Singh M, Jassal R, Khetarpal P. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for endometriosis: a patent landscape. Arch Gynecol Obstet. Mar 2024;309(3):831-842. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Imran M, Khan SA, Alshammari MK, et al. Discovery, development, inventions, and patent trends on mobocertinib succinate: the first-in-class oral treatment for NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. Biomedicines. Dec 17, 2021;9(12):1938. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    81. Ailia MJ, Thakur N, Abdul-Ghafar J, Jung CK, Yim K, Chong Y. Current trend of artificial intelligence patents in digital pathology: a systematic evaluation of the patent landscape. Cancers (Basel). May 13, 2022;14(10):2400. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    82. Chuah LH, Loo HL, Goh CF, Fu JY, Ng SF. Chitosan-based drug delivery systems for skin atopic dermatitis: recent advancements and patent trends. Drug Deliv Transl Res. May 2023;13(5):1436-1455. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    83. Liu XX, Chen CY, Li L, et al. Bibliometric study of adaptogens in dermatology: pharmacophylogeny, phytochemistry, and pharmacological mechanisms.. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2023;17:341-361. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    84. Zhou W, Chen D. Emerging patent landscape for gene therapy as a potential cure for COVID-19. Math Probl Eng. Jan 8, 2021;2021:1-6. [CrossRef]
    85. Yuan Y, Fu Q, Zhang Y, et al. CAR-based cell therapy: evaluation with bibliometrics and patent analysis. Hum Vaccin Immunother. Nov 2, 2021;17(11):4374-4382. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    86. Picanco-Castro V, Gonçalves Pereira C, Swiech K, Ribeiro Malmegrim KC, Tadeu Covas D, Silveira Porto G. Emerging CAR T cell therapies: clinical landscape and patent technological routes. Hum Vaccin Immunother. Jun 2, 2020;16(6):1424-1433. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Asif M, Tiwana MI, Khan US, et al. Advancements, trends and future prospects of lower limb prosthesis. IEEE Access. 2021;9:85956-85977. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    88. Culmone C, Yikilmaz FS, Trauzettel F, Breedveld P. Follow-the-leader mechanisms in medical devices: a review on scientific and patent literature. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2023;16:439-455. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    89. Shivakumar P, Gupta MS, Jayakumar R, Gowda DV. Prospection of chitosan and its derivatives in wound healing: proof of patent analysis (2010-2020). Int J Biol Macromol. Aug 1, 2021;184:701-712. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    90. Kurakula M, N NR. Prospection of recent chitosan biomedical trends: evidence from patent analysis (2009-2020). Int J Biol Macromol. Dec 15, 2020;165(Pt B):1924-1938. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Liu K, Gu Z, Islam MS, et al. Global landscape of patents related to human coronaviruses. Int J Biol Sci. 2021;17(6):1588-1599. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Lohita S, T RH, Rebello AP. Myocardial infraction: background, recent advances and interventions supported by clinical trial and patent landscape. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2023;83(1):142-157. [CrossRef]
    93. Queiroz A, Mendes IAC, de Godoy S, Velez Lapão L, Dias S. mHealth strategies related to HIV postexposure prophylaxis knowledge and access: systematic literature review, technology prospecting of patent databases, and systematic search on app stores. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 16, 2021;9(2):e23912. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Kong X, Zuo H, Huang HD, et al. STING as an emerging therapeutic target for drug discovery: perspectives from the global patent landscape. J Adv Res. Feb 2023;44:119-133. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    95. Singh P, Dhankhar J, Kapoor RK, et al. Ficus benghalensis—a comprehensive review on pharmacological research, nanotechnological applications, and patents. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2023;13(10):59-82. [CrossRef]
    96. Wei F, Zhou H, Gao G, Zheng Q. Analysis of trends in patent development for coronavirus detection, prevention, and treatment technologies in key countries. J Biosaf Biosecur. Jun 2022;4(1):23-32. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    97. Islam MM, Naveen NR, Anitha P, et al. The race to replace PDE5i: recent advances and interventions to treat or manage erectile dysfunction: evidence from patent landscape (2016-2021). J Clin Med. May 31, 2022;11(11):3140. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    98. DasNandy A, Virge R, Hegde HV, Chattopadhyay D. A review of patent literature on the regulation of glucose metabolism by six phytocompounds in the management of diabetes mellitus and its complications. J Integr Med. May 2023;21(3):226-235. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    99. Silva MB, Feitosa AO, Lima IGO, et al. Antarctic organisms as a source of antimicrobial compounds: a patent review. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2022;94(suppl 1):e20210840. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    100. Imran M, Kumar Arora M, Asdaq SMB, et al. Discovery, development, and patent trends on molnupiravir: a prospective oral treatment for COVID-19. Molecules. Sep 24, 2021;26(19):5795. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    101. Raghu Kiran CVS, Gopinath C. Idiom of gastroretentive drug delivery systems: comprehensive view on innovation technologies, patents and clinical trails. Neuroquantology. 2023;21(6):1237-1253. [CrossRef]
    102. Imran M, Asdaq SMB, Khan SA, et al. Innovations and patent trends in the development of USFDA approved protein kinase inhibitors in the last two decades. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). Jul 22, 2021;14(8):710. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Cammarano A, Dello Iacono S, Meglio C, Nicolais L. Advances in transdermal drug delivery systems: a bibliometric and patent analysis. Pharmaceutics. Dec 12, 2023;15(12):2762. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    104. Mitsumori Y, Kato H, Kato A, Kamijo K. An analysis of COVID-19 related IPRS: should they be promoted, waived or pooled? Presented at: 2022 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET):1-11; Portland, OR. [CrossRef]
    105. Ali Hazis NU, Aneja N, Rajabalaya R, David SR. Systematic patent review of nanoparticles in drug delivery and cancer therapy in the last decade. Recent Adv Drug Deliv Formul. 2021;15(1):59-74. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Russo Serafini M, Medeiros Savi F, Ren J, et al. The patenting and technological trends in hernia mesh implants. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. Feb 2021;27(1):48-73. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    107. Fluit R, Prinsen EC, Wang S, van der Kooij H. A comparison of control strategies in commercial and research knee prostheses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. Jan 2020;67(1):277-290. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    108. Zhang T, Chen J, Lu Y, Xu D, Yang X, Ouyang Z. The research activities and development trends of antineoplastics targeting PD-1/PD-L1 based on scientometrics and patentometrics. 2022. Presented at: 2022 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI); Dec 14-16, 2022; Las Vegas, NV. [CrossRef]
    109. Verma R. A technical analysis of MIOT in sensitive aspect. Presented at: 2023 3rd International Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE); May 12-13, 2023; Greater Noida, India. [CrossRef]
    110. Sertkaya A, McGeeney JD, Sullivan C, et al. Assessing the state of antibacterial drug discovery through patent analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. Feb 2024;63(2):107051. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    111. Chen TA, Tsai SC, Hu KK. Using big data analytics on health industry development: the empirical intellectual property analysis from stem cell therapy. Presented at: 2021 IEEE 3rd Eurasia Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Healthcare and Sustainability (ECBIOS); May 28-30, 2021; Tainan, Taiwan. [CrossRef]
    112. Jeon D, Ahn JM, Kim J, Lee C. A doc2vec and local outlier factor approach to measuring the novelty of patents. Technol Forecast Soc Change. Jan 2022;174:121294. [CrossRef]
    113. Chen Y, Xiong SH, Li F, et al. Delivery of therapeutic small interfering RNA: the current patent-based landscape. Mol Ther Nucleic Acids. Sep 13, 2022;29:150-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    114. Liu J, Wei JQ, Liu YQ. Technology forecasting based on topic analysis and social network analysis: a case study focusing on gene editing patents. J Sci Ind Res. May 2021;80(5):428-437. [CrossRef]
    115. Chang SH. The development trend and academic patent technology network of laser and optical technologies. Int J Innov Sci. Mar 23, 2022;14(2):302-315. [CrossRef]
    116. Wadhwa R, Yu J, Parikh A. eP277: Exploring the landscape of genetics patents in the United States from 2005 to 2020. Genet Med. Mar 2022;24(3):S174-S175. [CrossRef]
    117. Erzurumlu SS, Pachamanova D. Topic modeling and technology forecasting for assessing the commercial viability of healthcare innovations. Technol Forecast Soc Change. Jul 2020;156:120041. [CrossRef]
    118. Borge L, Wustmans M, Bröring S. Assessing interdisciplinary research within an emerging technology network: a novel approach based on patents in the field of bioplastics. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2022;71:1452-1469. [CrossRef]
    119. Robinson AÁ, Islam N, Sengoku S, Miyazaki K. Examining the role of actors in an emerging technological system: the case of POC devices. Presented at: 2023 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET); Jul 23-27, 2023; Monterrey, Mexico. [CrossRef]
    120. Pasek JE, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA. Trends in bioengineering patents granted 2000 - 2019. Biomed Sci Instrum. Apr 1, 2021;57(2):61-73. [CrossRef]
    121. Hernández-Melchor D, López-Bayghen E, Padilla-Viveros A. The patent landscape in the field of stem cell therapy: closing the gap between research and clinic. F1000Res. 2023;11:997. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    122. Mancilla-de-la-Cruz J, Rodriguez-Salvador M, Ruiz-Cantu L. The next pharmaceutical path: determining technology evolution in drug delivery products fabricated with additive manufacturing. Foresight and STI Governance. 2020;14(3):55-70. [CrossRef]
    123. Picanço-Castro V, Pereira CG, Covas DT, Porto GS, Athanassiadou A, Figueiredo ML. Emerging patent landscape for non-viral vectors used for gene therapy. Nat Biotechnol. Feb 2020;38(2):151-157. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    124. Aboy M, Liddell K, Liddicoat J, Crespo C, Jordan M. Mapping the European patent landscape for medical uses of known products. Nat Biotechnol. Nov 2021;39(11):1336-1343. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    125. Aboy M, Price WN, Raker S. Mapping the patent landscape of medical machine learning. Nat Biotechnol. Apr 2023;41(4):461-468. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    126. Frisio DG, Ventura V. Global innovation trends for plant-based vaccines production: a patent analysis. Plants (Basel). Nov 23, 2021;10(12):2558. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    127. Danylenko Y, Nepokupna T. Analysis of scintillation materials for nuclear medicine on the basis of patent analytics. Sci Innov. 2023;19(5):43-56. [CrossRef]
    128. Barragán-Ocaña A, Oliver-Espinoza R, Longar-Blanco MDP, Gómez-Viquez H. Technological development and patent analysis: the case of biopharmacy in the world and in Latin America. Tapuya. Dec 31, 2022;5(1). [CrossRef]
    129. Orozco Colonia BS, Vinícius de Melo Pereira G, Soccol CR. Omega-3 microbial oils from marine thraustochytrids as a sustainable and technological solution: a review and patent landscape. Trends Food Sci Technol. May 2020;99:244-256. [CrossRef]
    130. Gadiya Y, Shetty S, Hofmann-Apitius M, Gribbon P, Zaliani A. Exploring SureChEMBL from a drug discovery perspective. Sci Data. May 16, 2024;11(1):507. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    131. Almeida FLC, Castro MPJ, Travalia BM, et al. Trends in lipase immobilization: bibliometric review and patent analysis. Process Biochem. 2021;110:302-302. [CrossRef]
    132. Sanchez-Campos N, Bernaldez-Sarabia J, Licea-Navarro AF. Conotoxin patenting trends in academia and industry. Mar Drugs. Aug 19, 2022;20(8):531. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    133. Mendes CRA, Pappen E, Baeta AMC, et al. Patentometric analysis of the technological development of biotechnology for health in higher education institutions in Rio Grande do Sul. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2024;96(1):e20231201. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    134. Melo RLF, Neto FS, Dari DN, et al. A comprehensive review on enzyme-based biosensors: advanced analysis and emerging applications in nanomaterial-enzyme linkage. Int J Biol Macromol. Apr 2024;264(Pt 2):130817. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    135. Hachimi Alaoui C, Fatimi A. A 20-year patent review and innovation trends on hydrogel-based coatings used for medical device biofabrication. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. Jun 2023;34(9):1255-1273. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    136. Tarasova EV, Luchnikova NA, Grishko VV, Ivshina IB. Actinomycetes as producers of biologically active terpenoids: current trends and patents. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). Jun 12, 2023;16(6):872. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    137. Ragno L, Borboni A, Vannetti F, Amici C, Cusano N. Application of social robots in healthcare: review on characteristics, requirements, technical solutions. Sensors (Basel). Jul 31, 2023;23(15):6820. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    138. Chowdhury AR, Gargate G. The trends in CRISPR research: a patent and literature study with a focus on India. World Patent Information. Jun 2021;65:102038. [CrossRef]
    139. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. Mar 1, 2023;21(3):520-532. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    140. Herman Muraro Gularte K, Alfredo Ruiz Vargas J, Paulo Javidi da Costa J, et al. Safeguarding the V2X pathways: exploring the cybersecurity landscape through systematic review. IEEE Access. 2024;12:72871-72895. [CrossRef]
    141. Difference between data mining and text mining. GeeksforGeeks. URL: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-data-mining-and-text-mining [Accessed 2025-08-22]
    142. Data transformation. Starburst. URL: https://www.starburst.io/data-glossary/data-transformation/ [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    143. Petryschuk P. What is network visualization? Auvik. 2024. URL: https://www.auvik.com/franklyit/blog/what-is-network-visualization/ [Accessed 2025-08-22]
    144. Hines P, Hiu Yu L, Guy RH, Brand A, Papaluca-Amati M. Scanning the horizon: a systematic literature review of methodologies. BMJ Open. May 27, 2019;9(5):e026764. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    145. Vignali V, Hines PA, Cruz AG, Ziętek B, Herold R. Health horizons: future trends and technologies from the European Medicines Agency’s horizon scanning collaborations. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:1064003. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    146. Global cancer burden growing, amidst mounting need for services. World Health Organization. 2024. URL: https:/​/www.​who.int/​news/​item/​01-02-2024-global-cancer-burden-growing--amidst-mounting-need-for-services [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    147. Naghavi M, Mestrovic T, Gray A, et al. Global burden associated with 85 pathogens in 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Infect Dis. Aug 2024;24(8):868-895. [CrossRef]
    148. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proc Int AAAI Conf Web Soc Media. 2009;3(1):361-362. [CrossRef]
    149. van Eck NJP, Waltman L. VOS: a new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In: Decker R, Lenz HJ, editors. Advances in Data Analysis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2007.
    150. Derwent innovation: explanation on themescape. Clarivate. 2022. URL: https:/​/support.​clarivate.com/​Patents/​s/​article/​Derwent-Innovation-Explanation-on-ThemeScape?language=en_US [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    151. About pandas. Pandas. 2025. URL: https://pandas.pydata.org/about/ [Accessed 2025-07-15]
    152. Bubela T, Gold ER, Graff GD, Cahoy DR, Nicol D, Castle D. Patent landscaping for life sciences innovation: toward consistent and transparent practices. Nat Biotechnol. Mar 2013;31(3):202-206. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    153. Smith JA, Arshad Z, Trippe A, Collins GS, Brindley DA, Carr AJ. The reporting items for patent landscapes statement. Nat Biotechnol. Nov 9, 2018;36(11):1043-1047. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    IO: Innovation Observatory
    NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    SDMO: study type, data, methods, outcomes

    Edited by Taiane de Azevedo Cardoso; submitted 19.12.24; peer-reviewed by I-Chun Lai, James Kenneth Timmis, M Pruski; final revised version received 27.05.25; accepted 28.05.25; published 11.09.25.

    Copyright

    © Sonia Garcia Gonzalez-Moral, Erin Pennock, Olushola Ewedairo, Elizabeth Green, James Elgey, Andrew Mkwashi. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (https://www.i-jmr.org/), 11.9.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.