Proposing, Reporting, and Refereeing Evaluation Studies; Study Ethics

  • Charles P. Friedman
  • Jeremy C. Wyatt
Part of the Computers and Medicine book series (C+M)


This final chapter addresses a set of issues focusing on communication. These are the often “hidden” but important considerations that can determine if a study receives the resources that make its conduct possible, if a study in progress encounters procedural difficulties, and if a completed study leads to improvement or adoption of an information resource. Whether a study is funded depends on how well the plan for the study is represented in a proposal; whether a study encounters procedural difficulties depends on the investigator’s adherence to general ethical standards as well as more specific stipulations built into an evaluation contract; whether a study leads to improvement or adoption of a resource depends on how well the study findings are represented in various reports.


Evaluation Study Information Resource Subjectivist Study Clinical Decision Support System Medical Informatics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Miller RA, Paul R, Mitchell JA, Friedman CP, Stead WW: Preparing a medical informatics research grant proposal: general principles. Comput Biomed Res 1989;22:92–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Grant Application (PHS 398). Form approved through September 30, 1997, OMB No. 0925-0001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller PL, Sittig DF: The evaluation of clinical decision support systems: what is necessary versus what is interesting. Med Inf (Lond) 1990;15:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Timpka T, Arborelius E: A method for study of dilemmas during health care consultations. Med Inf (Lond) 1991;16:55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sackett D, Haynes R, Guyatt G, Tugwell P: Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    SORT: Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomised controlled trials. JAMA 1994;272:1926–1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chalmers I, Altman DG: Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publishing, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones R. Why do qualitative research? BMJ 1995;311;2 [editorial].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindberg DA, Siegel ER, Rapp BA, Wallingford KT, Wilson SR: Use of MEDLINE by physicians for clinical problem solving. JAMA 1993;269:3124–3129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forsythe DE: Using ethnography in the design of an explanation system. Expert Syst Applications 1995;8:403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Osheroff JA, Forsythe DE, Buchanan BG, et al: Physicians’ information needs: an analysis of questions posed during clinical teaching in internal medicine. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:576–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson R: NHS-wide networking and patient confidentiality. BMJ 1995;311:5–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wyatt JC: Clinical data systems. II. Components and techniques. Lancet 1994;344:1609–1614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heathfield H, Wyatt JC: The road to professionalism in medical informatics: a proposal for debate. Methods Inf Med 1995;34:426–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brahams D, Wyatt J: Decision-aids and the law. Lancet 1989;2:632–634.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested Reading

  1. Smith NL (ed): Communication Strategies in Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982. [A somewhat old but very interesting book that outlines many nontraditional modes of communicating evaluation results is.].Google Scholar
  2. Popham WJ: Educational Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988. [An amusing, widely applicable chapter on reporting evaluations.].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles P. Friedman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeremy C. Wyatt
    • 3
  1. 1.University of North CarolinaPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Center for Biomedical InformaticsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Imperial Cancer Research FundLondonUK

Personalised recommendations