Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Research Report”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Writing research reports.

The findings of nursing research are of little value unless they are communicated to other nurses and other health professionals. Therefore, writing the research report is an essential component of the research process. This article gives a general guide for the organization and presentation of a research report. For specific rules on style and format, the reader is referred to style manuals and to guides for authors for specific journals.

Nursing↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The research critique. General criteria for evaluating a research report.

General criteria for evaluating a research report are addressed. This outline of criteria can be used as a guide for nurses in critiquing research studies. A sample research report is summarized followed by a critique of the study. Readers have an opportunity to practice critiquing by doing their own analyses before reading the critique presented in the article.

Data Collection↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Guidelines for critique of a research report.

Before findings reported in a research article are used to change clinical practice, the research must be evaluated for evidence of credibility, integrity, and potential for replication. This paper provides guidelines for use in evaluating deductive, empirical research. The standards presented in this paper are derived from the tenets of the scientific method, measurement theory, statistical principles, and research ethics. The guidelines may be used to evaluate each section of a research report, from the title to the interpretation of findings.

Humans↗
PubMed1990

Ten rules for reading clinical research reports.

This was not a scientific assessment of the scientific quality of the papers published by The American Journal of Surgery. It was an informal audit of the adequacy of the data analysis in the clinical research reports appearing in the 1987-1988 issues. As one who has devoted more than three decades to helping a great variety of people make sense of scientific data, I found the overall quality of data analysis in these papers to be above average for the medical literature; and yet, I found many instances of errors so serious as to render invalid the conclusions of the authors. My 10 proposed rules for reading clinical research reports constitute only an interim solution to a very worrisome problem. The real solution must come from the producers of and the gatekeepers for the medical literature.

General Surgery↗
PubMed1991

The research report: analysis of the findings, Part 1.

The purpose of the results section of the research report is to answer the research questions (the hypotheses) in the order they were asked (Thomas, 1990), to justify the use of the analytic technique used to answer the questions, to use tables and figures (where appropriate) to clarify and highlight relevant findings with an accompanying narrative, and to identify limitations.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Evaluation of sampling methods in research reported in selected clinical nursing journals: implications for nursing practice.

This article summarizes standards relating to sampling methodology, identifies deviations from these standards in research studies reported in selected clinical nursing journals, and provides suggestions for improving sampling methods to enhance the applicability of research for nursing practice. A random sample of 30 research reports published in 1986 in five clinical nursing journals was examined. Nearly 97 per cent of the published studies contained at least one major deficiency in sampling methodology. More than two thirds failed to describe the sampling frame, sample size, or number of refusals, withdrawals, and/or cases lost. Thirteen per cent did not report sampling methods. More than half made generalizations that were inappropriate for the sampling method used; 43 per cent did not acknowledge any limitations of their sample. Sample sizes were small, and statistical power to detect significant differences was low. These deficiencies in sampling procedures could detract from the value of the research that nurses are encouraged to use as a basis for practice. This article provides specific recommendations for remedying these deficiencies to help ensure the scientific merit of the research published for nursing practice.

Clinical Nursing Research↗
PubMed1986

Lower Purkinje cell counts in the cerebella of four autistic subjects: initial findings of the UCLA-NSAC Autopsy Research Report.

As part of an autopsy research project, the brains of four autistic subjects were examined and compared with those of three comparison subjects without CNS pathology and one with phenytoin toxicity. The cerebellum was selected for initial investigation because pathognomonic symptoms and neurophysiological measures suggest that pathology may exist in the cerebellar-vestibular axis in certain patients. Total Purkinje cell counts were significantly lower in the cerebellar hemisphere and vermis of each autistic subject than in the comparison subjects.

Adolescent↗