How to do high-quality clinical research 1: First steps

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

This is the first paper in a series of five on how to do good quality clinical research. It sets the scene for the four papers that follow. The aims of the series are to: promote reliable clinical research to inform clinical practice; help people new to research to get started (at any stage of their career); create teaching resources for experienced researchers; and help clinicians working in resource-poor settings to conduct research. We set out in this paper the skills clinicians need to run research projects that are relevant to their clinical practice. We focus on how to get the right training in research methodology, choose and refine a good research question, and then how to ensure the methods and data analysis plan are correct for the question being asked.

Related collections

Most cited references 17

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

Sandra M. Eldridge, Gillian A. Lancaster, Michael J Campbell … (2016)

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.

0 comments Cited 445 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Bias in analytic research

David Sackett (1979)

0 comments Cited 182 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke--consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals.

Alex Pollock, Bridget St George, Mark Fenton … (2014)

Research resources should address the issues that are most important to people affected by a particular healthcare problem. Systematic identification of stroke survivor, caregiver, and health professional priorities would ensure that scarce research resources are directed to areas that matter most to people affected by stroke.