what is a clinical research paper

Masks Strongly Recommended but Not Required in Maryland, Starting Immediately

Due to the downward trend in respiratory viruses in Maryland, masking is no longer required but remains strongly recommended in Johns Hopkins Medicine clinical locations in Maryland. Read more .

• Vaccines  
• Masking Guidelines
• Visitor Guidelines  

Understanding Clinical Trials

Clinical research: what is it.

Your doctor may have said that you are eligible for a clinical trial, or you may have seen an ad for a clinical research study. What is clinical research, and is it right for you?

Clinical research is the comprehensive study of the safety and effectiveness of the most promising advances in patient care. Clinical research is different than laboratory research. It involves people who volunteer to help us better understand medicine and health. Lab research generally does not involve people — although it helps us learn which new ideas may help people.

Every drug, device, tool, diagnostic test, technique and technology used in medicine today was once tested in volunteers who took part in clinical research studies.

At Johns Hopkins Medicine, we believe that clinical research is key to improve care for people in our community and around the world. Once you understand more about clinical research, you may appreciate why it’s important to participate — for yourself and the community.

What Are the Types of Clinical Research?

There are two main kinds of clinical research:

Observational Studies

Observational studies are studies that aim to identify and analyze patterns in medical data or in biological samples, such as tissue or blood provided by study participants.

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials, which are also called interventional studies, test the safety and effectiveness of medical interventions — such as medications, procedures and tools — in living people.

Clinical research studies need people of every age, health status, race, gender, ethnicity and cultural background to participate. This will increase the chances that scientists and clinicians will develop treatments and procedures that are likely to be safe and work well in all people. Potential volunteers are carefully screened to ensure that they meet all of the requirements for any study before they begin. Most of the reasons people are not included in studies is because of concerns about safety.

Both healthy people and those with diagnosed medical conditions can take part in clinical research. Participation is always completely voluntary, and participants can leave a study at any time for any reason.

“The only way medical advancements can be made is if people volunteer to participate in clinical research. The research participant is just as necessary as the researcher in this partnership to advance health care.” Liz Martinez, Johns Hopkins Medicine Research Participant Advocate

Types of Research Studies

Within the two main kinds of clinical research, there are many types of studies. They vary based on the study goals, participants and other factors.

Biospecimen studies

Healthy volunteer studies.

Clinical trials study the safety and effectiveness of interventions and procedures on people’s health. Interventions may include medications, radiation, foods or behaviors, such as exercise. Usually, the treatments in clinical trials are studied in a laboratory and sometimes in animals before they are studied in humans. The goal of clinical trials is to find new and better ways of preventing, diagnosing and treating disease. They are used to test:

Drugs or medicines

New types of surgery

Medical devices

New ways of using current treatments

New ways of changing health behaviors

New ways to improve quality of life for sick patients

 Goals of Clinical Trials

Because every clinical trial is designed to answer one or more medical questions, different trials have different goals. Those goals include:

Treatment trials

Prevention trials, screening trials, phases of a clinical trial.

In general, a new drug needs to go through a series of four types of clinical trials. This helps researchers show that the medication is safe and effective. As a study moves through each phase, researchers learn more about a medication, including its risks and benefits.

Is the medication safe and what is the right dose?   Phase one trials involve small numbers of participants, often normal volunteers.

Does the new medication work and what are the side effects?   Phase two trials test the treatment or procedure on a larger number of participants. These participants usually have the condition or disease that the treatment is intended to remedy.

Is the new medication more effective than existing treatments?  Phase three trials have even more people enrolled. Some may get a placebo (a substance that has no medical effect) or an already approved treatment, so that the new medication can be compared to that treatment.

Is the new medication effective and safe over the long term?   Phase four happens after the treatment or procedure has been approved. Information about patients who are receiving the treatment is gathered and studied to see if any new information is seen when given to a large number of patients.

“Johns Hopkins has a comprehensive system overseeing research that is audited by the FDA and the Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs to make certain all research participants voluntarily agreed to join a study and their safety was maximized.” Gail Daumit, M.D., M.H.S., Vice Dean for Clinical Investigation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Is It Safe to Participate in Clinical Research?

There are several steps in place to protect volunteers who take part in clinical research studies. Clinical Research is regulated by the federal government. In addition, the institutional review board (IRB) and Human Subjects Research Protection Program at each study location have many safeguards built in to each study to protect the safety and privacy of participants.

Clinical researchers are required by law to follow the safety rules outlined by each study's protocol. A protocol is a detailed plan of what researchers will do in during the study.

In the U.S., every study site's IRB — which is made up of both medical experts and members of the general public — must approve all clinical research. IRB members also review plans for all clinical studies. And, they make sure that research participants are protected from as much risk as possible.

Earning Your Trust

This was not always the case. Many people of color are wary of joining clinical research because of previous poor treatment of underrepresented minorities throughout the U.S. This includes medical research performed on enslaved people without their consent, or not giving treatment to Black men who participated in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male. Since the 1970s, numerous regulations have been in place to protect the rights of study participants.

Many clinical research studies are also supervised by a data and safety monitoring committee. This is a group made up of experts in the area being studied. These biomedical professionals regularly monitor clinical studies as they progress. If they discover or suspect any problems with a study, they immediately stop the trial. In addition, Johns Hopkins Medicine’s Research Participant Advocacy Group focuses on improving the experience of people who participate in clinical research.

Clinical research participants with concerns about anything related to the study they are taking part in should contact Johns Hopkins Medicine’s IRB or our Research Participant Advocacy Group .

Learn More About Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Medicine

For information about clinical trial opportunities at Johns Hopkins Medicine, visit our trials site.

How to Write a Clinical Paper

• First Online: 02 February 2019

Cite this chapter

• Brendan Coleman 8  

2365 Accesses

Publishing the results of your research is a fulfilling experience, both from a personal viewpoint, but also helping advance the orthopaedic knowledge. This chapter discusses the process from completing the study to formulating the final manuscript that is ready for submission, providing a structure to follow in preparation of the manuscript and tips on improving your writing style.

Research is essential in advancing the knowledge of the orthopaedic community, and publishing the results of research is an important part of the advancement of the knowledge. Writing and publishing research can be intimidating when you first begin. There are different forms of publication from case studies or series, controlled trials and systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Each requires a different approach to research, but the fundamentals of preparing the manuscript are similar. Following the prescribed technique gives the manuscript structure allowing improved writing and giving the reader the information they want.

Once writing of the manuscript is complete, submission to a journal needs to be managed. Most articles will not be accepted immediately by the journal. Formal peer review will provide feedback that needs to be addressed in a timely manner prior to resubmission to the journal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Andrade C. How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011;53(2):172–5.

Article   Google Scholar  

Belcher WL. Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: a guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009.

Google Scholar  

Earnshaw JJ. How to write a clinical paper for publication. Surgery. 2012;30(9):437–41.

Faber J. Writing scientific manuscripts: most common mistakes. Dental Press J Orthod. 2017;22(5):113–7.

Faigley L, Witte SP. Analyzing revision. Coll Compos Commun. 1981;32(4):400–14.

Kallestinova ED. How to write your first research paper. Yale J Biol Med. 2011;84(3):181–90.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Karlson J, Marx RG, Nakamura N, Bhandari M, editors. A practical guide to research: design, execution and publication. Art Ther. 2011;27(Suppl 2):1–112.

Silvia PJ. How to write a lot. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007.

Swales JM, Feak CB. Academic writing for graduate students. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2004.

Whitesides GM. Writing a paper. Adv Mater. 2004;16(15):1375–7.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

www.prisma-statement.org .

www.strobe-statement.org .

Zeiger M. Essentials of writing biomedical research papers. 2nd ed. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc; 2000.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand

Brendan Coleman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan Coleman .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Volker Musahl

Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

Jón Karlsson

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

Michael T. Hirschmann

McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Olufemi R. Ayeni

Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

Robert G. Marx

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

Jason L. Koh

Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Coleman, B. (2019). How to Write a Clinical Paper. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_25

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_25

Published : 02 February 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-662-58253-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-662-58254-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Nih clinical research trials and you, what is clinical research.

Clinical research occurs in many formats and can involve anyone. Learn how you can participate and contribute to medical advances.​

This page last reviewed on September 29, 2016

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

What makes a high quality clinical research paper?

Affiliation.

• 1 BMJ, London, UK. [email protected]
• PMID: 20233312
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01663.x

The quality of a research paper depends primarily on the quality of the research study it reports. However, there is also much that authors can do to maximise the clarity and usefulness of their papers. Journals' instructions for authors often focus on the format, style, and length of articles but do not always emphasise the need to clearly explain the work's science and ethics: so this review reminds researchers that transparency is important too. The research question should be stated clearly, along with an explanation of where it came from and why it is important. The study methods must be reported fully and, where appropriate, in line with an evidence based reporting guideline such as the CONSORT statement for randomised controlled trials. If the study was a trial the paper should state where and when the study was registered and state its registration identifier. Finally, any relevant conflicts of interest should be declared.

Publication types

• Clinical Trials as Topic*
• Ethics, Research*
• Guidelines as Topic
• Journalism, Medical / standards*
• Periodicals as Topic
• Publishing / standards*
• Writing / standards*

JAY SIWEK, M.D., MARGARET L. GOURLAY, M.D., DAVID C. SLAWSON, M.D., AND ALLEN F. SHAUGHNESSY, PHARM.D.

Am Fam Physician. 2002;65(2):251-258

Traditional clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly. Nonquantitative systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. Meta-analyses (quantitative systematic reviews) seek to answer a focused clinical question, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. This article presents guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article for American Family Physician . First, the topic should be of common interest and relevance to family practice. Include a table of the continuing medical education objectives of the review. State how the literature search was done and include several sources of evidence-based reviews, such as the Cochrane Collaboration, BMJ's Clinical Evidence , or the InfoRetriever Web site. Where possible, use evidence based on clinical outcomes relating to morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, and studies of primary care populations. In articles submitted to American Family Physician , rate the level of evidence for key recommendations according to the following scale: level A (randomized controlled trial [RCT], meta-analysis); level B (other evidence); level C (consensus/expert opinion). Finally, provide a table of key summary points.

American Family Physician is particularly interested in receiving clinical review articles that follow an evidence-based format. Clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in important ways. 1 Updates selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly. An example of such a topic is, “The diagnosis and treatment of myocardial ischemia.” Systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. Examples are many of the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration or BMJ's Clinical Evidence compendium. Meta-analyses are a special type of systematic review. They use quantitative methods to analyze the literature and seek to answer a focused clinical question, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. An example is, “Do beta blockers reduce mortality following myocardial infarction?”

The best clinical review articles base the discussion on existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and incorporate all relevant research findings about the management of a given disorder. Such evidence-based updates provide readers with powerful summaries and sound clinical guidance.

In this article, we present guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article, especially one designed for continuing medical education (CME) and incorporating CME objectives into its format. This article may be read as a companion piece to a previous article and accompanying editorial about reading and evaluating clinical review articles. 1 , 2 Some articles may not be appropriate for an evidence-based format because of the nature of the topic, the slant of the article, a lack of sufficient supporting evidence, or other factors. We encourage authors to review the literature and, wherever possible, rate key points of evidence. This process will help emphasize the summary points of the article and strengthen its teaching value.

Topic Selection

Choose a common clinical problem and avoid topics that are rarities or unusual manifestations of disease or that have curiosity value only. Whenever possible, choose common problems for which there is new information about diagnosis or treatment. Emphasize new information that, if valid, should prompt a change in clinical practice, such as the recent evidence that spironolactone therapy improves survival in patients who have severe congestive heart failure. 3 Similarly, new evidence showing that a standard treatment is no longer helpful, but may be harmful, would also be important to report. For example, patching most traumatic corneal abrasions may actually cause more symptoms and delay healing compared with no patching. 4

Searching the Literature

When searching the literature on your topic, please consult several sources of evidence-based reviews ( Table 1 ) . Look for pertinent guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of the disorder being discussed. Incorporate all high-quality recommendations that are relevant to the topic. When reviewing the first draft, look for all key recommendations about diagnosis and, especially, treatment. Try to ensure that all recommendations are based on the highest level of evidence available. If you are not sure about the source or strength of the recommendation, return to the literature, seeking out the basis for the recommendation.

In particular, try to find the answer in an authoritative compendium of evidence-based reviews, or at least try to find a meta-analysis or well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) to support it. If none appears to be available, try to cite an authoritative consensus statement or clinical guideline, such as a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement or a clinical guideline published by a major medical organization. If no strong evidence exists to support the conventional approach to managing a given clinical situation, point this out in the text, especially for key recommendations. Keep in mind that much of traditional medical practice has not yet undergone rigorous scientific study, and high-quality evidence may not exist to support conventional knowledge or practice.

Patient-Oriented vs. Disease-Oriented Evidence

With regard to types of evidence, Shaughnessy and Slawson 5 – 7 developed the concept of Patient-Oriented Evidence that Matters (POEM), in distinction to Disease-Oriented Evidence (DOE). POEM deals with outcomes of importance to patients, such as changes in morbidity, mortality, or quality of life. DOE deals with surrogate end points, such as changes in laboratory values or other measures of response. Although the results of DOE sometimes parallel the results of POEM, they do not always correspond ( Table 2 ) . 2 When possible, use POEM-type evidence rather than DOE. When DOE is the only guidance available, indicate that key clinical recommendations lack the support of outcomes evidence. Here is an example of how the latter situation might appear in the text: “Although prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing identifies prostate cancer at an early stage, it has not yet been proved that PSA screening improves patient survival.” (Note: PSA testing is an example of DOE, a surrogate marker for the true outcomes of importance—improved survival, decreased morbidity, and improved quality of life.)

Evaluating the Literature

Evaluate the strength and validity of the literature that supports the discussion (see the following section, Levels of Evidence). Look for meta-analyses, high-quality, randomized clinical trials with important outcomes (POEM), or well-designed, nonrandomized clinical trials, clinical cohort studies, or case-controlled studies with consistent findings. In some cases, high-quality, historical, uncontrolled studies are appropriate (e.g., the evidence supporting the efficacy of Papanicolaou smear screening). Avoid anecdotal reports or repeating the hearsay of conventional wisdom, which may not stand up to the scrutiny of scientific study (e.g., prescribing prolonged bed rest for low back pain).

Look for studies that describe patient populations that are likely to be seen in primary care rather than subspecialty referral populations. Shaughnessy and Slawson's guide for writers of clinical review articles includes a section on information and validity traps to avoid. 2

Levels of Evidence

Readers need to know the strength of the evidence supporting the key clinical recommendations on diagnosis and treatment. Many different rating systems of varying complexity and clinical relevance are described in the medical literature. Recently, the third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) emphasized the importance of rating not only the study type (RCT, cohort study, case-control study, etc.), but also the study quality as measured by internal validity and the quality of the entire body of evidence on a topic. 8

While it is important to appreciate these evolving concepts, we find that a simplified grading system is more useful in AFP . We have adopted the following convention, using an ABC rating scale. Criteria for high-quality studies are discussed in several sources. 8 , 9 See the AFP Web site ( www.aafp.org/afp/authors ) for additional information about levels of evidence and see the accompanying editorial in this issue discussing the potential pitfalls and limitations of any rating system.

Level A (randomized controlled trial/meta-analysis): High-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) that considers all important outcomes. High-quality meta-analysis (quantitative systematic review) using comprehensive search strategies.

Level B (other evidence): A well-designed, nonrandomized clinical trial. A nonquantitative systematic review with appropriate search strategies and well-substantiated conclusions. Includes lower quality RCTs, clinical cohort studies, and case-controlled studies with non-biased selection of study participants and consistent findings. Other evidence, such as high-quality, historical, uncontrolled studies, or well-designed epidemiologic studies with compelling findings, is also included.

Level C (consensus/expert opinion): Consensus viewpoint or expert opinion.

Each rating is applied to a single reference in the article, not to the entire body of evidence that exists on a topic. Each label should include the letter rating (A, B, C), followed by the specific type of study for that reference. For example, following a level B rating, include one of these descriptors: (1) nonrandomized clinical trial; (2) nonquantitative systematic review; (3) lower quality RCT; (4) clinical cohort study; (5) case-controlled study; (6) historical uncontrolled study; (7) epidemiologic study.

Here are some examples of the way evidence ratings should appear in the text:

“To improve morbidity and mortality, most patients in congestive heart failure should be treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. [Evidence level A, RCT]”

“The USPSTF recommends that clinicians routinely screen asymptomatic pregnant women 25 years and younger for chlamydial infection. [Evidence level B, non-randomized clinical trial]”

“The American Diabetes Association recommends screening for diabetes every three years in all patients at high risk of the disease, including all adults 45 years and older. [Evidence level C, expert opinion]”

When scientifically strong evidence does not exist to support a given clinical recommendation, you can point this out in the following way:

“Physical therapy is traditionally prescribed for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder), although there are no randomized outcomes studies of this approach.”

Format of the Review

Introduction.

The introduction should define the topic and purpose of the review and describe its relevance to family practice. The traditional way of doing this is to discuss the epidemiology of the condition, stating how many people have it at one point in time (prevalence) or what percentage of the population is expected to develop it over a given period of time (incidence). A more engaging way of doing this is to indicate how often a typical family physician is likely to encounter this problem during a week, month, year, or career. Emphasize the key CME objectives of the review and summarize them in a separate table entitled “CME Objectives.”

The methods section should briefly indicate how the literature search was conducted and what major sources of evidence were used. Ideally, indicate what predetermined criteria were used to include or exclude studies (e.g., studies had to be independently rated as being high quality by an established evaluation process, such as the Cochrane Collaboration). Be comprehensive in trying to identify all major relevant research. Critically evaluate the quality of research reviewed. Avoid selective referencing of only information that supports your conclusions. If there is controversy on a topic, address the full scope of the controversy.

The discussion can then follow the typical format of a clinical review article. It should touch on one or more of the following subtopics: etiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation (signs and symptoms), diagnostic evaluation (history, physical examination, laboratory evaluation, and diagnostic imaging), differential diagnosis, treatment (goals, medical/surgical therapy, laboratory testing, patient education, and follow-up), prognosis, prevention, and future directions.

The review will be comprehensive and balanced if it acknowledges controversies, unresolved questions, recent developments, other viewpoints, and any apparent conflicts of interest or instances of bias that might affect the strength of the evidence presented. Emphasize an evidence-supported approach or, where little evidence exists, a consensus viewpoint. In the absence of a consensus viewpoint, you may describe generally accepted practices or discuss one or more reasoned approaches, but acknowledge that solid support for these recommendations is lacking.

In some cases, cost-effectiveness analyses may be important in deciding how to implement health care services, especially preventive services. 10 When relevant, mention high-quality cost-effectiveness analyses to help clarify the costs and health benefits associated with alternative interventions to achieve a given health outcome. Highlight key points about diagnosis and treatment in the discussion and include a summary table of the key take-home points. These points are not necessarily the same as the key recommendations, whose level of evidence is rated, although some of them will be.

Use tables, figures, and illustrations to highlight key points, and present a step-wise, algorithmic approach to diagnosis or treatment when possible.

Rate the evidence for key statements, especially treatment recommendations. We expect that most articles will have at most two to four key statements; some will have none. Rate only those statements that have corresponding references and base the rating on the quality and level of evidence presented in the supporting citations. Use primary sources (original research, RCTs, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews) as the basis for determining the level of evidence. In other words, the supporting citation should be a primary research source of the information, not a secondary source (such as a nonsystematic review article or a textbook) that simply cites the original source. Systematic reviews that analyze multiple RCTs are good sources for determining ratings of evidence.

The references should include the most current and important sources of support for key statements (i.e., studies referred to, new information, controversial material, specific quantitative data, and information that would not usually be found in most general reference textbooks). Generally, these references will be key evidence-based recommendations, meta-analyses, or landmark articles. Although some journals publish exhaustive lists of reference citations, AFP prefers to include a succinct list of key references. (We will make more extensive reference lists available on our Web site or provide links to your personal reference list.)

You may use the following checklist to ensure the completeness of your evidence-based review article; use the source list of reviews to identify important sources of evidence-based medicine materials.

Checklist for an Evidence-Based Clinical Review Article

The topic is common in family practice, especially topics in which there is new, important information about diagnosis or treatment.

The introduction defines the topic and the purpose of the review, and describes its relevance to family practice.

A table of CME objectives for the review is included.

The review states how you did your literature search and indicates what sources you checked to ensure a comprehensive assessment of relevant studies (e.g., MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Database, the Center for Research Support, TRIP Database).

Several sources of evidence-based reviews on the topic are evaluated ( Table 1 ) .

Where possible, POEM (dealing with changes in morbidity, mortality, or quality of life) rather than DOE (dealing with mechanistic explanations or surrogate end points, such as changes in laboratory tests) is used to support key clinical recommendations ( Table 2 ) .

Studies of patients likely to be representative of those in primary care practices, rather than subspecialty referral centers, are emphasized.

Studies that are not only statistically significant but also clinically significant are emphasized; e.g., interventions with meaningful changes in absolute risk reduction and low numbers needed to treat. (See http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1116 .) 11

The level of evidence for key clinical recommendations is labeled using the following rating scale: level A (RCT/meta-analysis), level B (other evidence), and level C (consensus/expert opinion).

Acknowledge controversies, recent developments, other viewpoints, and any apparent conflicts of interest or instances of bias that might affect the strength of the evidence presented.

Highlight key points about diagnosis and treatment in the discussion and include a summary table of key take-home points.

Use tables, figures, and illustrations to highlight key points and present a step-wise, algorithmic approach to diagnosis or treatment when possible.

Emphasize evidence-based guidelines and primary research studies, rather than other review articles, unless they are systematic reviews.

The essential elements of this checklist are summarized in Table 3 .

Siwek J. Reading and evaluating clinical review articles. Am Fam Physician. 1997;55:2064-2069.

Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC. Getting the most from review articles: a guide for readers and writers. Am Fam Physician. 1997;55:2155-60.

Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, et al. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:709-17.

Flynn CA, D'Amico F, Smith G. Should we patch corneal abrasions? A meta-analysis. J Fam Pract. 1998;47:264-70.

Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF, Bennett JH. Becoming a medical information master: feeling good about not knowing everything. J Fam Pract. 1994;38:505-13.

Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Bennett JH. Becoming an information master: a guidebook to the medical information jungle. J Fam Pract. 1994;39:489-99.

Slawson DC, Shaughnessy AF. Becoming an information master: using POEMs to change practice with confidence. Patient-oriented evidence that matters. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:63-7.

Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Methods Work Group, Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. A review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 suppl):21-35.

CATbank topics: levels of evidence and grades of recommendations. Retrieved November 2001, from: http://www.cebm.net/ .

Saha S, Hoerger TJ, Pignone MP, Teutsch SM, Helfand M, Mandelblatt JS. for the Cost Work Group of the Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 suppl):36-43.

Evidence-based medicine glossary. Retrieved November 2001, from: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1116 .

Continue Reading

More in afp, more in pubmed.

Copyright © 2002 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.

This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP.  See permissions  for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Family Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to FDA Search
• Skip to in this section menu
• Skip to footer links

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

•   Search
•   Menu
• For Patients
• Clinical Trials: What Patients Need to Know

What Are the Different Types of Clinical Research?

Different types of clinical research are used depending on what the researchers are studying. Below are descriptions of some different kinds of clinical research.

Treatment Research generally involves an intervention such as medication, psychotherapy, new devices, or new approaches to surgery or radiation therapy. 

Prevention Research looks for better ways to prevent disorders from developing or returning. Different kinds of prevention research may study medicines, vitamins, vaccines, minerals, or lifestyle changes. 

Diagnostic Research refers to the practice of looking for better ways to identify a particular disorder or condition. 

Screening Research aims to find the best ways to detect certain disorders or health conditions. 

Quality of Life Research explores ways to improve comfort and the quality of life for individuals with a chronic illness. 

Genetic studies aim to improve the prediction of disorders by identifying and understanding how genes and illnesses may be related. Research in this area may explore ways in which a person’s genes make him or her more or less likely to develop a disorder. This may lead to development of tailor-made treatments based on a patient’s genetic make-up. 

Epidemiological studies seek to identify the patterns, causes, and control of disorders in groups of people. 

An important note: some clinical research is “outpatient,” meaning that participants do not stay overnight at the hospital. Some is “inpatient,” meaning that participants will need to stay for at least one night in the hospital or research center. Be sure to ask the researchers what their study requires. 

Phases of clinical trials: when clinical research is used to evaluate medications and devices Clinical trials are a kind of clinical research designed to evaluate and test new interventions such as psychotherapy or medications. Clinical trials are often conducted in four phases. The trials at each phase have a different purpose and help scientists answer different questions. 

Phase I trials Researchers test an experimental drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time. The researchers evaluate the treatment’s safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects. 

Phase II trials The experimental drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.

Phase III trials The experimental study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people. Researchers confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the experimental drug or treatment to be used safely. 

Phase IV trials Post-marketing studies, which are conducted after a treatment is approved for use by the FDA, provide additional information including the treatment or drug’s risks, benefits, and best use.

Examples of other kinds of clinical research Many people believe that all clinical research involves testing of new medications or devices. This is not true, however. Some studies do not involve testing medications and a person’s regular medications may not need to be changed. Healthy volunteers are also needed so that researchers can compare their results to results of people with the illness being studied. Some examples of other kinds of research include the following: 

A long-term study that involves psychological tests or brain scans

A genetic study that involves blood tests but no changes in medication

A study of family history that involves talking to family members to learn about people’s medical needs and history.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Clinical Research in Primary Care

Program snapshot.

There is a critical need to extend research participation opportunities to broader communities. This is, in part, because people who are historically underrepresented in research are also often medically underserved and disproportionately impacted by disease and illness (e.g., certain racial and ethnic groups, gender minority groups, people who live in rural environments, older adults, persons experiencing challenging social determinants of health and related experiences). When research study demographics don’t match the demographics of the illness or condition being studied, generalizability of the evidence is compromised, further compounding these health disparities. While most have not talked with their doctor about participating in health research, Americans increasingly agree that opportunities for participation in clinical trials should be a part of regular healthcare. 

Therefore, NIH is proposing to establish a network to conduct research in primary care settings. This network will address barriers to access to clinical research participation by implementing a sustained infrastructure that integrates innovative research with routine clinical care in real world settings, with a focus on sustained engagement with communities that are traditionally underrepresented in clinical research. Improving access to clinical studies will facilitate and accelerate research advances for adoption and implementation into everyday clinical care, improving health outcomes and advancing health equity for all Americans. 

The four goals of this initiative are to: 

• Pilot and implement the infrastructure for a network on primary care-focused clinical research to serve all ICs, particularly those without their own large-scale networks.
• Establish a foundation for sustained engagement with communities underrepresented in clinical research (e.g., racial and ethnic minority groups, gender minority groups, people who live in rural environments, older adults, persons experiencing challenging social determinants of health and related experiences).
• Implement innovative study designs that address common health issues, including disease prevention.
• Engage with community and health care systems to integrate innovative science with routine clinical care and change clinical practice as a result of the research outcomes

The network will involve the following components: 

• Providing oversight of the studies/protocols and site and study selection.
• Providing statistical and data management support
• Developing innovative clinical study designs and implementation strategies to minimize burden on participants and providers in primary care settings.
• Operations Center – Conducting site feasibility assessments, site agreements/contracting, and coordination of study operations (protocol development; compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) regulatory and participant protection requirements; communications; training; auditing; quality assurance; and data monitoring)
• Independent Review and Monitoring Boards - Including Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), Observational Study Monitoring Board (OSMB), and the Central Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Network Research Hubs – Leveraging existing research networks and partnerships with Clinical Sites to conduct clinical research in primary care settings.
• Community Engagement – Providing support, advice, and resources, in part through partnerships with existing entities, to facilitate sustained participant and community engagement, community-driven research, and integration of studies in primary and community care settings.
• Industry Partnerships – Engaging for-profit partners for collaborative knowledge sharing and potential participation in/use of the infrastructure.

Interested in receiving program updates?  Sign up for the NIH Common Fund’s  program on integrating clinical research into primary care settings email listserv  to receive periodic updates on program planning and activities.

Announcements

New Research Opportunity Announcement available! A new research opportunity is available. Read more now.

• Technical Assistance Webinar, Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 12:00 PM ET. Register today!
• Technical Assistance Webinar, Wednesday, May 22, 2024 at 12:00 PM ET. Register today!

New Approval On April 5, 2024, The NIH Council of Councils approved the concept of Establishing a Network for Clinical Research in Primary Care. View the presentation slides presented by NIH Director, Dr. Monica Bertagnolli here . And watch the presentation videocast . 

Do you have questions? Email us at: [email protected]

This page last reviewed on May 9, 2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Study Suggests Genetics as a Cause, Not Just a Risk, for Some Alzheimer’s

People with two copies of the gene variant APOE4 are almost certain to get Alzheimer’s, say researchers, who proposed a framework under which such patients could be diagnosed years before symptoms.

By Pam Belluck

Scientists are proposing a new way of understanding the genetics of Alzheimer’s that would mean that up to a fifth of patients would be considered to have a genetically caused form of the disease.

Currently, the vast majority of Alzheimer’s cases do not have a clearly identified cause. The new designation, proposed in a study published Monday, could broaden the scope of efforts to develop treatments, including gene therapy, and affect the design of clinical trials.

It could also mean that hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone could, if they chose, receive a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s before developing any symptoms of cognitive decline, although there currently are no treatments for people at that stage.

The new classification would make this type of Alzheimer’s one of the most common genetic disorders in the world, medical experts said.

“This reconceptualization that we’re proposing affects not a small minority of people,” said Dr. Juan Fortea, an author of the study and the director of the Sant Pau Memory Unit in Barcelona, Spain. “Sometimes we say that we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease,” but, he said, this would mean that about 15 to 20 percent of cases “can be tracked back to a cause, and the cause is in the genes.”

The idea involves a gene variant called APOE4. Scientists have long known that inheriting one copy of the variant increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s, and that people with two copies, inherited from each parent, have vastly increased risk.

The new study , published in the journal Nature Medicine, analyzed data from over 500 people with two copies of APOE4, a significantly larger pool than in previous studies. The researchers found that almost all of those patients developed the biological pathology of Alzheimer’s, and the authors say that two copies of APOE4 should now be considered a cause of Alzheimer’s — not simply a risk factor.

The patients also developed Alzheimer’s pathology relatively young, the study found. By age 55, over 95 percent had biological markers associated with the disease. By 65, almost all had abnormal levels of a protein called amyloid that forms plaques in the brain, a hallmark of Alzheimer’s. And many started developing symptoms of cognitive decline at age 65, younger than most people without the APOE4 variant.

“The critical thing is that these individuals are often symptomatic 10 years earlier than other forms of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Reisa Sperling, a neurologist at Mass General Brigham in Boston and an author of the study.

She added, “By the time they are picked up and clinically diagnosed, because they’re often younger, they have more pathology.”

People with two copies, known as APOE4 homozygotes, make up 2 to 3 percent of the general population, but are an estimated 15 to 20 percent of people with Alzheimer’s dementia, experts said. People with one copy make up about 15 to 25 percent of the general population, and about 50 percent of Alzheimer’s dementia patients.

The most common variant is called APOE3, which seems to have a neutral effect on Alzheimer’s risk. About 75 percent of the general population has one copy of APOE3, and more than half of the general population has two copies.

Alzheimer’s experts not involved in the study said classifying the two-copy condition as genetically determined Alzheimer’s could have significant implications, including encouraging drug development beyond the field’s recent major focus on treatments that target and reduce amyloid.

Dr. Samuel Gandy, an Alzheimer’s researcher at Mount Sinai in New York, who was not involved in the study, said that patients with two copies of APOE4 faced much higher safety risks from anti-amyloid drugs.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved the anti-amyloid drug Leqembi last year, it required a black-box warning on the label saying that the medication can cause “serious and life-threatening events” such as swelling and bleeding in the brain, especially for people with two copies of APOE4. Some treatment centers decided not to offer Leqembi, an intravenous infusion, to such patients.

Dr. Gandy and other experts said that classifying these patients as having a distinct genetic form of Alzheimer’s would galvanize interest in developing drugs that are safe and effective for them and add urgency to current efforts to prevent cognitive decline in people who do not yet have symptoms.

“Rather than say we have nothing for you, let’s look for a trial,” Dr. Gandy said, adding that such patients should be included in trials at younger ages, given how early their pathology starts.

Besides trying to develop drugs, some researchers are exploring gene editing to transform APOE4 into a variant called APOE2, which appears to protect against Alzheimer’s. Another gene-therapy approach being studied involves injecting APOE2 into patients’ brains.

The new study had some limitations, including a lack of diversity that might make the findings less generalizable. Most patients in the study had European ancestry. While two copies of APOE4 also greatly increase Alzheimer’s risk in other ethnicities, the risk levels differ, said Dr. Michael Greicius, a neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine who was not involved in the research.

“One important argument against their interpretation is that the risk of Alzheimer’s disease in APOE4 homozygotes varies substantially across different genetic ancestries,” said Dr. Greicius, who cowrote a study that found that white people with two copies of APOE4 had 13 times the risk of white people with two copies of APOE3, while Black people with two copies of APOE4 had 6.5 times the risk of Black people with two copies of APOE3.

“This has critical implications when counseling patients about their ancestry-informed genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease,” he said, “and it also speaks to some yet-to-be-discovered genetics and biology that presumably drive this massive difference in risk.”

Under the current genetic understanding of Alzheimer’s, less than 2 percent of cases are considered genetically caused. Some of those patients inherited a mutation in one of three genes and can develop symptoms as early as their 30s or 40s. Others are people with Down syndrome, who have three copies of a chromosome containing a protein that often leads to what is called Down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease .

Dr. Sperling said the genetic alterations in those cases are believed to fuel buildup of amyloid, while APOE4 is believed to interfere with clearing amyloid buildup.

Under the researchers’ proposal, having one copy of APOE4 would continue to be considered a risk factor, not enough to cause Alzheimer’s, Dr. Fortea said. It is unusual for diseases to follow that genetic pattern, called “semidominance,” with two copies of a variant causing the disease, but one copy only increasing risk, experts said.

The new recommendation will prompt questions about whether people should get tested to determine if they have the APOE4 variant.

Dr. Greicius said that until there were treatments for people with two copies of APOE4 or trials of therapies to prevent them from developing dementia, “My recommendation is if you don’t have symptoms, you should definitely not figure out your APOE status.”

He added, “It will only cause grief at this point.”

Finding ways to help these patients cannot come soon enough, Dr. Sperling said, adding, “These individuals are desperate, they’ve seen it in both of their parents often and really need therapies.”

Pam Belluck is a health and science reporter, covering a range of subjects, including reproductive health, long Covid, brain science, neurological disorders, mental health and genetics. More about Pam Belluck

The Fight Against Alzheimer’s Disease

Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, but much remains unknown about this daunting disease..

How is Alzheimer’s diagnosed? What causes Alzheimer’s? We answered some common questions .

A study suggests that genetics can be a cause of Alzheimer’s , not just a risk, raising the prospect of diagnosis years before symptoms appear.

Determining whether someone has Alzheimer’s usually requires an extended diagnostic process . But new criteria could lead to a diagnosis on the basis of a simple blood test .

The F.D.A. has given full approval to the Alzheimer’s drug Leqembi. Here is what to know about i t.

Alzheimer’s can make communicating difficult. We asked experts for tips on how to talk to someone with the disease .

Handbook To Happiness

By the speakmans.

No-one is born with an instruction manual, so in the absence of a handbook to life, join us, our therapy family, as we create that Handbook To Happiness .

We're The Speakmans - comprising of 2 therapists, Nik & Eva, with 3 scientific research papers published, and a clinical trial backing up the efficacy of our self-developed approach; our daughter Liv, a University of Oxford Psychologist & Neuroscienti ... 

Podcast episodes

Give Yourself A Break: Teaser

In their very first episode, the Speakman therapy family open up and candidly talk about their own anxieties, confidence issues, grieving, and their parenting skills. Why did Hunter have to jump ship at university recently due to his mental health? And does Liv talking about comparing yourself to others resonate with you? Does being a therapist or child of a therapist offer immunity from the effects of bullying, low self-esteem, fears or anxieties? And what advice can they offer to help you; as an individual, partner, friend or parent? The entire Speakman family share an abundance of simple and effective tips to help you in promoting your happiness, no matter what your age. They offer interesting facts, details into their life, and opportunities to have a giggle, as well as explaining why we all need to give ourselves a break.

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 8.5.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Adult Tumor Clinical Trials in China: Cross-Sectional Study

Authors of this article: