ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2018
Learning from an Unsuccessful Study Idea: Reflection and Application of Innovative Techniques to Prevent Future Failures.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Articulating the "So, What?" in Clinical Research: Insight from the M-CHOIR Group.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
- Organizing a Multidisciplinary Research Team: Strategies, Execution, and Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A well-organized, thoughtful study design is essential for creating an impactful study. However, pressures promoting high output from researchers can lead to rushed study proposals that overlook critical weaknesses in the study design that can affect the validity of the conclusions. Researchers can benefit from thorough review of past failed proposals when crafting new research ideas. Conceptual frameworks and root cause analysis are two innovative techniques that can be used during study development to identify flaws and prevent study failures. In addition, conceptual frameworks and root cause analysis can be combined to complement each other to provide both a big picture and detailed view of a study proposal. This article describes these two common analytical methods and provides an example of how they can be used to evaluate and improve a study design by critically examining a previous failed research idea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.