Methodology in medical research, learn how to better evaluate results

[Merc.]

I recently posted this on another board also .. So you might have seen it already...

I wanted to post this here as it has a lot of great info .. So if you are a fellow researcher/scientist ( or you just like science) this is a great read from Dr Ollie ( a very respected member in our scientific community).. check it out..


hi,

This thread is intented to help science savvy members to upgrade their ability to make proper judgements on the research findings they encounter. The ability to assess study quality and make inferences beyond author's conclusions is the skill that separates great scientists from the rest. In the internet, such level of ability is a rare phenomenon indeed. Plus, I'll guarentee you, this is the skill that provides the most amount of benefit in shortest amount of time.

I'd be delighted especially if some of the ImmInst hard-core scientist would pop in to provide insights or perhaps point us to source of information they themseves have found valuable, remembering of course level of knowledge of the audience they are addressing.

I'll begin by providing few links that not only give great insights to the nature of evidence, also might give direct relevant information on the phenomena themselves. Take your time with these and enjoy:

Some basics (you may want to follow the links on the wikis by yourself, I just collected some of the most important ones)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_design
http://www.cebm.net/study_designs.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomi...ntrolled_trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohort_study
http://clio.stanford.edu:7080/cocoon...ort/index.html
http://clio.stanford.edu:7080/cocoon...ort/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_heterogeneity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-sectional_study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

http://www.montrealinternational.com...rinciples.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...ug/stages.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...target-id.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...y-lead-id.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...imization.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...al-trials.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...v-phase-1.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...v-phase-2.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...v-phase-3.html
http://www.montrealinternational.com...v-phase-4.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...imental_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Epidemiology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinical_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinica...ising_outcomes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline_%28medical%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_%28medical%29

More specific subjects (a good way to learn more is to check the list of references):

This articles discusses the relationship between diet and cancer while given insights to the research methodology, not very hard-core stuff yet:
http://www.nypcancerprevention.com/i.../iss_ins.shtml

This is rather rigorous paper on relialibity and nature of research findings
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...pmed%2E0020124

And here is our own John Schloendorn's commentary on statistical significance, with references of course (page 3, don't know why the links never work):
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.p...3&#entry106530