Formulating a good research question: Pearls and pitfalls

Fandino, Wilson

doi:10.4103/ija.ija_198_19

Cited by 44 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it is important that students use the F.I.N.E.R. criteria (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical and Relevant) [3] to select a research topic that has important implications for society at large. To avoid duplication, a thorough literature search must precede framing of the research question, an important step we often tend to bypass.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research by undergraduate medical students: Common pitfalls and ethical dilemmas

Mulkalwar¹

2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent times, multiple attempts have been made to involve medical students in research projects right from the early days of their medical education. Such efforts have started showing results and students are involving themselves in research workshops and activities to understand scientific literature better. However, they need to keep in mind some important ethical aspects which they may tend to overlook. Here, I highlight the loopholes exploited by young researchers and shortcuts used in the process. I also focus on different measures medical students could incorporate in their research to generate quality data, while following ethical practices.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research by undergraduate medical students: Common pitfalls and ethical dilemmas

Mulkalwar¹

2022

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The checklist is available at Table A1 (in Appendix A). The research question was formulated through the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time) approach [32].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservative Interventions for Non-Specific Low Back Pain in Tactical Populations: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited evidence exists about non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) interventions among tactical personnel (police officers, firefighters, or army forces). The aim was to identify and systematically review the findings of randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating conservative interventions for the treatment NSLBP in tactical personnel. A search of seven databases for randomized controlled trials RCTs were conducted. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias (PEDro scale). Five RCTs (n = 387 military subjects; median PEDro score = 7/10) were included. The trials were highly heterogeneous, differing in pain and disability outcome measures, duration of NSLBP symptoms (acute, nonacute, nonchronic, and chronic), types of intervention (exercise, manual therapy, and physical therapy), types of control groups, and intervention durations (4–12 weeks). Two studies reported that strengthening exercise interventions were not effective for reducing pain or disability in military personnel with chronic or nonacute NSLBP. Manual therapy treatment was more effective than usual activities in current pain and pain typical symptoms in soldiers with acute NSLBP after four weeks. A multidimensional intervention reduced disability in military personnel with non-chronic NSLBP after four weeks. Strong evidence does not exist for the efficacy of any conservative interventions in the reduction of pain and disability in tactical populations with NSLBP.

show abstract

“…The research question should be answerable with the help of aims and objectives. [6,7] Hypothesis: It is a statement about the outcome of the research. It is a prediction that provides an explanation for an observed event.…”

Section: Elements Of Research Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%