Research: lecture 1

Question 1

-involve more than just minimal risks to the participants
-involve a sensitive topic
-involve minors or other vulnerable populations (fetus, prisoner)

ex: most prospective research that includes an intervention requires a full review

Entire Board reviews

Answer 1

full

Question 2

research definition

Answer 2

any manipulation, observation or other study of a human being… some with the intent of developing new knowledge

Question 3

T/F:: research requires IRB approval prior to beginning any data collection or participant recruitment

Answer 3

T

Question 4

T/F: you can go back and use old medical records that were standard of care and publish the data without IRB approval

Answer 4

F

Question 5

How can you avoid having to do a dual review for IRB approval?

Answer 5

do an institutional IRB agreement between the two universities

Question 6

what are the three levels of IRB review

Answer 6

full
expedited
exempt

Question 7

-involve minimal risks to the participants
-sub-set of the board review

Answer 7

expedited

Question 8

-pose little risks to the partipants
- do not involve a sensitive topic
-do not involve vulnerable populations

Answer 8

exempt

Question 9

elements of informed consent

Answer 9

fully informed
confidential and anonymous as much as possible
6th grade lvl
researcher must offer to answer questions throughout study
no penalty for withdrawing
contact info provided
Participants must sign every page and get a copy
voluntary

Question 10

T/F: you can be an author on the manuscript even if your name wasn’t in the IRB

Answer 10

T

Question 11

evidence based practice is the integration of

Answer 11

-best research evidence
-clinical expertise
-patient values/ situation

Question 12

what does PICO stand for

Answer 12

Patient or problem
Intervention
Comparison intervention
Outcomes

Question 13

this is a common way to develop a research question

Answer 13

PICO

Question 14

what does FINER stand for

Answer 14

Feasible
Interesting
Novel
Ethical
Relevant

Question 15

CEBM levels hierarchy

Answer 15

1a - systematic RCT
1b
1c
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
4
5 - expert opinion

Question 16

1a

Answer 16

systemic reviews of RCTs

Question 17

1b

Answer 17

RCT with narrow CI

Question 18

1c

Answer 18

all or none

all pts died before a rx became available, now some live

some patients dies before rx became available, now none dies

Question 19

2a

Answer 19

systematic review of cohort studies

2+ groups (cohorts) of pts, one which did receive the exposure of interest (or has risk factor) and one that didnt, and following these cohorts forward for the outcome of interest

Question 20

2b

Answer 20

cohort study or low quality RCT

One group (cohort), followed over time

Question 21

2c

Answer 21

outcomes research

focused on what is of value for the patient (effectiveness). does the intervention make a difference in the eyes of the patient?

Question 22

3a

Answer 22

systematic review of case control studies

case control: finding people who already have a condition and people who dont and then looking back in time to see what might have caused it

Question 23

3b

Answer 23

individual case-control study

Question 24

4

Answer 24

case reports, small case series

Question 25

5

Answer 25

expert opinion without any critical appraisal, bench research

Question 26

hierarchies: grades

Answer 26

A-F

Question 27

A

Answer 27

strong evidence - preponderance of level 1 and or level II studies support the recommendation. must include at least 1 level I study

Question 28

B

Answer 28

moderate evidence - a single high quality RCT or a preponderance of level 2 studies support the recommendation

Question 29

C

Answer 29

weak evidence - a single level II study or a preponderance of level III and IV studies including statements of consensus by content experts support the recommendation

Question 30

D

Answer 30

conflicting evidence - higher quality studies conducted on this topic disagree

Question 31

E

Answer 31

theoretical/foundational evidence - a preponderane from animal to cadaver studies, from conceptual models/principles or from basic sciences/bench research support this conclusion

Question 32

F

Answer 32

expert opinion - best practice based on this clinical experience alone

Question 33

PEDro

Answer 33

measure the quality of an RCT 6+ is high quality quiz

Question 34

Quadas

Answer 34

a tool to measure the quality of a study that investigates the DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY of a test 7+ is high quality

Question 35

first author, last author, second author

Answer 35

first - writes bulk of manuscript, most of work last - senior author second - can be senior author or major contributor

Question 36

to be an author, what must you do?

Answer 36

one or all: conception of the ideas or design execution of the study analysis of data writing of manuscript

Question 37

what is included in the abstract

Answer 37

background/importance study purpose overview of methods main findings primary conclusions

Question 38

examples of unfiltered / primary resources

Answer 38

RCT Cohort studies case-controlled studies

Question 39

strengths of primary source articles

Answer 39

immediately current (often prior to publication) many are available on-line in full text

Question 40

weaknesses of primary sources

Answer 40

for all except PEDro, you still need to read and extract the information to your question it only finds articles in journals in their engine

Question 41

systematic reviews

Answer 41

secondary resource ask a specific clinical question, perform a comprehensive literature search, eliminate the poorly done studies, and attempt to make practice recommendations based on the strongest studies

Question 42

meta-analysis

Answer 42

secondary source systemic review plus it combines all the data from the studies and present the overall results

Question 43

strength of secondary source articles

Answer 43

summarizes info for you you don't need to find all the articles and read them yourself

Question 44

secondary source weaknesses

Answer 44

some are better and more comprehensive than others always dated

Question 45

what's a reputable journal?

Answer 45

found in major databases, search NLM catalog has editorial board with chief editor clear description of their peer review process

Question 46

whats the purpose of the introduction part of your manuscript?

Answer 46

statement of problem and its clinical relevance "the purpose of this study is...."

Question 47

what are the four components of the methods section?

Answer 47

participants - include inclusion/exclusion procedures instrumentation - include validity procedures - must be reproducible data analysis -

Question 48

T/F: the results section will include the interpretation of the results

Answer 48

FALSE

Question 49

What should be included in the discussion?

Answer 49

compare to previous literature strengths of study Limitations of study future research clinical implications