Advertisement

How to Review a Clinical Research Paper?

  • Neel K. Patel
  • Marco Yeung
  • Kanto Nagai
  • Volker MusahlEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Critical evaluation of each section of a paper is needed in order to properly assess the purpose and quality of the paper and to understand the degree to which the results can influence clinical practice. Reviewing a paper is a skill that is best honed by practice, but there is no real formal training during medical school or residency on what to evaluate during a review and what the review process involves for a journal. Thus, this chapter will highlight the major points to review in each section of a paper and will provide a guide for young investigators to use while interpreting the findings of a paper. Additionally, the components of a review submission to a journal will be outlined.

Keywords

Peer review Reviewer Publication 

References

  1. 1.
    Brand RA. Writing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(1):239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910060197402121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramisetty N, Kwon Y, Mohtadi N. Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery—a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2015;2(1):15–27.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnv002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;274(18):1456–8.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stone AV, Jacobs CA, Luo TD, et al. High degree of variability in reporting of clinical and patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2017;46(12):3040–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517724743.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B, et al. Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(12):812.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neel K. Patel
    • 1
  • Marco Yeung
    • 1
  • Kanto Nagai
    • 1
  • Volker Musahl
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations