Misconceptions and misunderstandings hampering medical research and progress

Abstract

INTRODUCTION When scientific projects or articles are evaluated, objections are often raised that may prevent their performance or publication. Sometimes, the flaws noted may not be correct or relevant to the study. In this article, we review the most common types of objections that can hinder the progress of medical research and suggest ways to reduce them. CLINICAL (OR PROCEDURAL) OBJECTIONS AND STATISTICAL/METHODOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS The objections an evaluator can make to a research project can be grouped into 2 broad categories: clinical (or procedural) and statistical/methodological. The former can be addressed and, if necessary, refuted by the author of the project as they relate to the clinical problem per se. In this regard, the author of the project has more expertise and sometimes more up-to-date knowledge than the evaluator on the issue in question. A common example could be the objection, “the project does not specify under which conditions baseline blood pressure should be measured, or the criteria chosen to define hypertension.” The researcher can acknowledge the flaw in his/her protocol and correct it or argue that the objection is incorrect. The situation is different with statistical/methodological objections. Researchers, whether acting as evaluators or persons who are evaluated, are not usually experts in research methodology...