Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research pp 255–262Cite as

How to Review a Clinical Research Paper?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2368 Accesses

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brand RA. Writing for clinical orthopaedics and related research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(1):239–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910060197402121.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;274(18):1456–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Neel K. Patel, Marco Yeung, Kanto Nagai & Volker Musahl

Authors
  1. Neel K. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marco Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kanto Nagai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Volker Musahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Volker Musahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Volker Musahl

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

    Jón Karlsson

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

    Michael T. Hirschmann

  4. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Olufemi R. Ayeni

  5. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Robert G. Marx

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

    Jason L. Koh

  7. 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Patel, N.K., Yeung, M., Nagai, K., Musahl, V. (2019). How to Review a Clinical Research 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_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58253-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58254-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation