Metlit-06 Usulan Penelitian (A) - Prof. dr. Sudigdo S, SpA(K).ppt

7/27/2019 Metlit-06 Usulan Penelitian (A) - Prof. dr. Sudigdo S, SpA(K).ppt

1/38

FromProposal

to Report

Writing

Sudigdo Sastroasmoro


2/38

Prologue

Scientific knowledge is knowledge

obtained by scientific procedures

Professionals should always usescientific knowledge to solve their

professional problems

Good professionals is obliged toparticipate in scientific development by

doing (however small) research in their

relevant field


3/38

Science is made of facts

as a house is made of stonesBut a bulk of facts

is not necessarily a science

as a mass of stones is not a house


4/38

Before you start.

Think very carefullywhat you will do for

yourresearch


5/38

FINER

Feasible: Time, expertise / manpower,

material, money, study subjects

Interesting to the investigatorNovel: Original, replicative

Ethical: Research Ethics Committee

Relevant to patient care, health care,

scientific development


6/38

Questions about Relevance

Is the magnitude of the problem reallyimportant?

Is the topic appropriate to answer the big

question?Does literature study support the need forinvestigation?

Can you develop one or more hypothesis?Do you think your peer group has the sameperception about the topic?

Does the topic consist knowledge gap that is

appropriate to be answered by doing


7/38

Questions about Novelty

Cant find similar study home and abroad?

Are there similar studies but give controversialresults?

Are there similar studies but had a lowvalidity?

Have not been studied in Indonesia?

Have a prediction that different results may befound?

Other aspects: see originality


8/38

Characteristics of high quality

research

Original

Independent

Substantial contribution

(Rigor)


9/38

Originality in research

Knipscheer HC, et al. Short-term efficacy and safety of

pravastatin in 72 children with familial

hypercholesterolemia. Pediatr Res. 1996;39:867 871.

de Jongh S, et al. Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in

children with familial hypercholesterolemia: a randomized,

double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with simvastatin.

Circulation. 2002;106:22312237.

Wiegman A, et al. Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in

children with familial hypercholesterolemia: a randomized

controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292:331337.

The following studies are labeled to asoriginal research, original contribution, ororiginal article


10/38

What is original research?1. Never done before

2. Continuing others original study3. Developing others original idea

4. Using new technique to find old data

5. Proposing / designing everything & ask investigators

/ technicians to perform the study under yourguidance

6. Finding new empirical data

7. Have not been done in Indonesia

8. Using old technique to explore new area9. New evidence for old issue

10. Examining others idea with original technique

11. Multidisciplinary approach to solve old issue

12. Applying others findings in different populations


11/38

Questions about Interesting

Are you really interested?

Why? Give reasons

Have you done similar study before?

Should someone offer you other topic, do

you tend to change your topic or try your

best with your original topic?


12/38

Questions about Ethics

Can you perform the study in line with ethicalprinciples?

If you plan to use humans, especially patients,

have you considered carefully that appropriateprotection can be applied?

In the case that the subject would be

incompetent to give consent, have youconsidered from whom the consent can be

obtained?

Have you considered the subjects response for

participating in the study?


13/38

Questions about Feasibility

Are you sure that the topic is within your areaof expertise?

Are there literature to be the basis fordeveloping sensible hypothesis?

What about the availability ofmedical, laboratory, other facilities

expertise

drugs

study subjects (Lasagnas law)

time, money,

consultants, etc?


14/38

Study Protocol

Aims as guidance for the investigator in the

whole process of the planned research

Different formats or styles, depending oninstitutions: should be followed rigidly

Followings are general requirements of

most research proposal


15/38

Anatomy & PhysiologyI. Introduction

II. Literature review

III. Methodology

IV. ReferencesV. Appendices


16/38

I. Introduction

A. Background

B. Research question(s)

C. Hypotheses

D. PurposeE. Significance


17/38

A. Background: Why do

research?Most important part of research

proposal

Should be arranged as the following:

What is the problem?

What is known? What is unknown? (knowledge gap)

What your study will add?


18/38

Background

Typically 4-8 pages

I personally recommend to make subtitles

forBackground, so that the informationprovided and the logical sequence arebetter understood.

Six-page long background without subtitlesmay result in to and fro information thatmake the reader or even the writer getconfused.

Adequate and strong references


19/38

Increased incidence of young people with AMI

Factors associated with young AMIGenetic studies in children of YAMI

Abroad

In Indonesia

Gene mutation as predictor for YAMI

Population-based vs. group-based screening

Knowledge gap to be filled with the proposed

study

Single gene-mutation in familial

hypercholesterolemia in children of young

patients with myocardial infarction a

screening method and economic analysis


20/38

Acute hypothyroidism in children

undergoing open heart surgery Prevalence

and role of oral thyroxin

Kemajuan tata laksana PJB

Luar biasa namuan ada beberapa kendala

Salah satunya hipotiroidisme akut

Peran hormon tiroid Sudah dinilai pada orang dewasa dgn tiroid IV

Hasil kontroversial

Peran tiroid pada anak

Belum diteliti, khususnya oral

Hasil yang diharapkan

utama

tambahan


21/38

Formulation of background in interrogative

sentence(s) which are:

brief and direct

clear

not multi-interpretable

b. Research question(s)


22/38

Is additional of drug A associated with betterprognosis in patients with diabetic neuropathy

compared with standard regimen?

Is neonatal asphyxia a risk factor for delayedmotoric development at 2 years of age?

Does administration of injectable contraceptive

result in undernutrition of infants who are

exclusively breast-fed at the age of 6 months?

Does passive smoking cause chronic and

recurrent cough in underfive children?

Research question(s): examples


23/38

A tentative answerfor research question thatshould be validated empirically

Hypothesis should not be judged as correct or

incorrect, but valid or not validNot all studies need hypothesis; surveys and

other descriptive studies do not need hypothesis

Any research questions containing the words:

associated with, related to, correlated to,different from, larger, smaller, better, worse,

more, cause, risk factor(s), etc need one or

more hypothesis.

c. Hypothesis


24/38

Written in a positive sentence

Based on good scientific reasoning

Can be validated empirically

Simple: describe the association of one or more

independent variables and one dependent

variable

can be tested separately with hypothesis testing

(cf. complex hypothesis)

Formulated a priori (cf. a posteriori, data dredging,

fishing expedition)

Characteristics of good hypothesis


25/38

General: wider aspect of prospective nature

To reduce mortality associated with DSS

Specific: What exactly will be measured

To determine demographic and clinical factors

associated with the development of DSS in

adults

To determine the effectiveness of Crystalloid Aas compared with RL in managing pts with DSS

For analytic studies, in general, specific purposes

are in-line with hypotheses

d. Purpose of the study


26/38

Academic

Clinical

Health policy

Further research

Note: quick vs. non-quick yielding

researches

e. Significance


27/38

Detailed, but only aspects relevant to thesubstance of the research; no need to reviewall aspects of the disease or problem underinvestigation

Requirement: good literature search andappraisal - Original articles, reviews,quantitative reviews, meta-analyses

Most recent publications (use internet!); olderones for historical perspectives

Repeated revisions, including language:words, sentences, paragraphs, literature

citations, etc.

II. Literature review


28/38

Theoretical framework: Summary of literature

review related directly to planned study

Not needed for grant application (included in

Background)

Followed by conceptual framework in theform of diagram showing inter-relationships

amongst variables

Theoretical & Conceptual

frameworks


29/38

Design(s): one study may have more than

1 designsTime and place

Population: target, source

Criteria for inclusion and exclusionSample: sampling techniques

Sample size

III. Methods

All must be elaborated explicitly in great details!


30/38

Procedures, equipment, drugs,

randomization, blinding, measurements,

interventions, follow-up, etc

Variable identification: independents,dependents, confounders, extraneous, etc

Definitions

Ethics Committee approvalPlan of analyses: types of tests, computer

programs used (appropriate, please!!),p

value, confidence intervals, etc

III. Methods (cont.)


31/38

Consistent style; FMUI: Vancouver style

Follow rigidly every aspects {Number of authors

included, editor(s), abbreviations of journals, first

& last pages, etc}, incl. punctuation (comma,colon, semicolon, full-stop, etc)

Important: fit the citation numbers in text and

numbers in the reference list!

Electronic materials not published in printedformat should be considered as unpublished

materials, as are theses, dissertations, personal

communications (use them if no comparable

published sources exist)

IV. References


32/38

Investigator(s), incl. curriculum vitae and researchtract records / previous publications

Sponsors

Time tablePlan of budget

Formulae (sample size), specific procedures, etc

Dummy tables

Ethical clearance

Informed consent form

Other relevant materials or information

V. Appendices


33/38

Research proposal (protocol)development is the very first step inresearch activities

Needs exercises by reading & reviewingother proposals; much better: learning bydoing

Arrangement of Title, Introduction, andMethods must be in logical sequences,reflecting scientific exercise

Badly written proposal will eventually

result in bad study conclusion(s)

Concluding remarks


34/38

Be prepared forLasagnas law

Dissertation blue

Writers block

Technical, financial, procedural, bureaucraticaspects

Unwritten rules in PhD research: Supervisors

Examiners

Department and related institutions

Family Yourself

Its okay, but the show must go on


35/38

After the study is

completed.


36/38

Report

To examiners (for thesis / dissertation)

To academic society (medical journal)

To layman

Different approach


37/38

To medical journal

Usual format: IMRAD

Always look Instructions to AuthorsIn-house style: specific for that

journal

A continuum from proposal to reportwriting


38/38

To medical journal

PROPOSAL REPORT

Introduction - Introduction

Literature review - None

Methods - Methods- - Results

- - Discussion

- - Conflict of interestReferences - References

Metlit-06 Usulan Penelitian (A) - Prof. dr. Sudigdo S, SpA(K).ppt

Documents