Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical Research in Practice is a primer of techniques for the beginning clinical researcher. Written by nursing faculty, it encourages all health care professionals to understand and contribute to the evidence that supports clinical practice. This book uses a straightforward approach to provide clinicians with the basic information required to carry out clinical research studies. The examples and case studies in the book focus on nursing issues, but can be readily applied to physical therapy clinical research. Although the book presents information in an uncomplicated manner, the text includes the major topics that should be present in such a primer. Part 1 contains introductory chapters that deal with the importance of clinical research and an overview of the step-by-step project development process. Part 2 delivers more detail on advancing the background and organizational aspects of the project, such as focusing the question, scanning the literature, soliciting project approval from the institutional review board (IRB), and securing institutional commitment. Part 3 includes the design concepts, including methodology, sampling strategy, and basic statistical analysis. Lastly, part 4 focuses on interpreting the existing evidence and applying it to clinical practice and also reviews validity and reliability concepts. Part 4 also includes chapters specific to survey and qualitative designs, as well as preparing for publication. Special features throughout the text contribute to the book’s practicality. For instance, “From the Mouths of Bedside Scientists” contain interviews of clinical researchers regarding key concepts. “For More Depth and Detail” are text boxes that include key references for further reading. “Another Way to Look at It” are excerpts that help to highlight and simplify real-life illustrations and examples. Appendixes include a glossary, a sample of an informed consent form, a reprinted article on how to review a published article, and a comprehensive checklist for evaluating a research article. The book is written in an easy-to-read, common sense manner. The text is easy to follow, and the special features contribute to the usefulness of the book. Experienced researchers may find it lacking in depth, but novice investigators will find it a refreshing alternative to more exhaustive tomes. The authors are successful at demystifying complicated concepts and encouraging clinicians to attempt clinical research. The reference lists are complete and direct the reader to more in-depth information, if desired. The book may lack the detail for a required text in an entry-level or transitional physical therapist education program. It would, however, make an excellent supplementary text to accompany a more comprehensive volume. In addition, it would prove invaluable to the clinician researcher who is interested in pursuing a clinical research project, but may be apprehensive regarding a commitment to such an endeavor. It provides a quick and supportive refresher course for practitioners who wish to revitalize their skills in evaluating the evidence or to explore a venture into clinical research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.067 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".