title: Fifteen common mistakes encountered in clinical research.
abstract: The baseline standards for minimally acceptable science are improving as the understanding of the scientific method improves. Journals publishing research papers are becoming more and more rigorous. For example, in 2001 a group of authors evaluated the quality of clinical trials in anesthesia published over a 20 year period [Pua et al., Anesthesiology 2001;95:1068-73]. The authors divided the time into 3 subgroups and analyzed and compared the quality assessment score from research papers in each group. The authors reported that the scientific quality scores increased significantly in this time, showing more randomization, sample size calculation and blinding of studies. Because every journal strives to have a high scientific impact factor, research quality is critical to this goal. This means novice researchers must study, understand and rigorously avoid the common mistakes described in this review. Failure to do so means the hundreds and hundreds of hours of effort it takes to conduct and write up a clinical trial will be for naught, in that the manuscript with be rejected or worse yet, ignored. All scientists have a responsibility to understand research methods, conduct the best research they can and publish the honest and unbiased results.
authors.affiliation: Orofacial Pain and Oral Medicine Center, Herman Ostrow School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0641, USA. gtc@usc.edu
authors.forename: Glenn T
authors.initials: GT
authors.lastname: Clark
authors.forename: Roseann
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Mulligan
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000379:methods; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D055811:Journal Impact Factor; D007802:Language; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D012107:Research Design; D018401:Sample Size; D013223:Statistics as Topic