258
are often identified (especially in retrospective chart reviews) in the peer review
process [ 11 ] listed below:
- Ill-defined and poorly-articulated research questions
- Failure to consider sampling size and strategy
- Inadequate operationalization of variables in the study
- Failure to clearly train and monitor data abstractors, as well as identifying how
many were involved in the project - Not using standard abstraction forms
- Not providing adequate instruction for data abstraction
- Poorly developed inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Not addressing interrater and intra-rater reliability
- Not performing a pilot test
- Failure to address confidentiality and ethical considerations
Upon submission to and eventual approval from the IRB, clear communica-
tion between the research team needs to become a regular occurrence in order to
allow for troubleshooting; even the most brilliantly written protocols may
require amendments when actually carrying out the protocol. There needs to be
open communication that allows for immediate correction of any issues. Better
to ask and correct right away, then not ask, complete the data collection incor-
rectly, and find out at the end. Regular communications will also allow for pro-
gression of the study, preventing the study from limping toward a finish line at
a snail’s pace.
The Limitations
There are several limitations when conducting research with residents and medical
students. As mentioned already, attempting to involve residents/students in random-
ized clinical trials comes with increased regulatory effort by research coordinators
and logistical difficulty with a monthly rotation schedule offering little benefit for
all parties involved. When possible, students and residents should be made aware of
RCTs taking place and be provided with brief overviews of the studies along with
the option to witness the consenting process.
Some study projects may not be feasible because they have costs required to
complete the project. Funding is a common issue in carrying out basic science
research, which often come with built-in costs to cover, at least materials (i.e., test
tubes and pipettes) and, at most, extremely costly reagents, animals with required
boarding costs, and either purchased or rented equipment. Funding has become a
serious issue in today’s political and economic environment. As an example, the
NIH budget is a clear indicator as to the chance that research will be funded. Since
2003, the rate of funding has steadily declined from upward of 30% down to 17%
in 2013 [ 24 ]. What has not decreased, is the number of investigators seeking fund-
ing. The decrease in funding opportunities at the NIH has forced all investigators to
D.I. Dynda et al.