medigraphic.com

2013, Number 4

<< Back

Cir Cir 2013; 81 (4)

Guideline for the assessment of clinical research proposals

Mejia-Arangure JM, Grijalva-Otero I, Majluf-Cruz A, Cruz-López M, Núñez-Enríquez JC, Salamanca-Gómez FA

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 357-364
PDF size: 272.16 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Medical research is a fundamental tool to achieve the advancement of science, through the improvement of strategies aimed to protect, promote and restore individual´s and society´s health. Three characteristics are required to obtain approval of the research proposal: scientific relevance, technical quality and the accomplishment of ethical issues.
Objectives: The present review aimed at the determination of the specific criteria to perform a critical review of research proposals.
Methods: A research was carried out in the Pubmed, Medline, Ovid and Google Scholar databases, using the terms: peer review, research proposals, review and protocols, and reviewers. A total of 3546 related articles were reviewed, not founding a guide to critically assess research proposals. The guides to assess research articles consider that the quality criteria of the study should have been present since the study´s conception; many of the issues described to review articles are incorporated in the review of the research proposals.
Results: The specific criteria were integrated to allow the reviewer critically assess research proposals of different areas with scientific basis.
Conclusions: The reviewer of research proposals should be considered as a professional that contributes to the promotion of the knowledge´s advancement through his/her comments which allow researchers the improvement of the quality of research proposals.


REFERENCES

  1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects (CIOMS). Geneva, Suiza: Organización Mundial de la Salud 2002 (consultado 2012 Dic 13). Disponible en http://www. recerca.uab.es/ceeah/docs/CIOMS.pdf.

  2. Ley General de Salud. México: Diario Oficial de la Federación (Última reforma publicada el 25 de enero de 2013) (consultado 2013 Ene 25). Disponible en http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ pdf/142.pdf; http://dof.gob.mx/ley-reg.php.

  3. Guía Nacional para la Integración y el Funcionamiento de los Comités de Ética en Investigación. México: Comisión Nacional de Bioética (consultado 2013 Ene 30). Disponible en www.ccinshae. salud.gob.mx/descargas/Investigacion/guiacei.pdf.

  4. Hulley SB, Newman TM, Cummings SR. Introducción: anatomía y fisiología de la investigación clínica. En: Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG y Newman TM, editores. Diseño de Investigaciones Clínicas. Estados Unidos: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2007;3-16.

  5. Triaridis S, Kyrgidis A. Peer review and journal impact factor: the two pillars of contemporary medical publishing. Hippokratia 2010;14(Suppl 1):5-12.

  6. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? JAMA 2000;283:2701-2711.

  7. Rodríguez YE. Comités de Evaluación Ética y Científica para la Investigación en seres humanos y las pautas CIOMS 2002. Acta Bioeth 2004 Abr 12;10(1):37-48. Disponible en http://www.scielo. cl/scielo.php?pid=S1726-569X2004000100005&script=sci_arttext.

  8. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-89.

  9. Marks RG, Dawson-Saunders EK, Bailar JC, Dan BB, Verran JA. Interactions between statisticians and biomedical journal editors. Stat Med 1988;7:1003-1011.

  10. Reading the Medical Literature. Nueva York: McGraw-Hill 2004 (consultado 2012 Oct 27). Disponible en http://www.accessmedicine. com/content.aspx?aID=2049133.

  11. Uniform Requirements of Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Vancouver: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 2010 (consultado 2012 Dic 1). Disponible en http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html.

  12. An Instructional Guide for Peer Reviewers of Biomedical Manuscripts. Annals of Emergency Medicine (consultado 2012 Dic 5). Disponible en http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/extractor/ graphics/em-acep/index.html.

  13. Guía práctica de investigación en salud. Publicación Científica y Técnica No. 620. Redacción del protocolo de investigación: Presentación de una propuesta de investigación. Washington, D.C: Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) 2008 (consultado 2012 Dic 2). Disponible en http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/ rehabilitacion-bal/ops_protocolo.pdf.

  14. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More Informative Abstracts Revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:69-76.

  15. How to review the evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHRMC) 2000 (consultado 2012 Dic 12). Disponible en http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/ attachments/cp65.pdf.

  16. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med 2006;5:101-117.

  17. Guideline for Critical Review Form. Quantitative Studies. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster 1998 (consultado 2012 Dic 1). Disponible en http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Portals/20/pdf/ebp/quanguidelines.pdf.

  18. Kliewer MA. Writing it Up: A Step-by-Step Guide to Publication for Beginning Investigators. Canad J Med Technol 2007;38:27-33.

  19. Young JM, Solomon MJ. How to critically appraise an article. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;6:82-91.

  20. Mejía-Aranguré JM, Salamanca Gómez Fabio. Temas prioritarios de salud en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. En: Echeverría Zuno S, Lifshitz A, Salamanca Gómez F, editores. La Reforma de la Investigación en el IMSS 2006-2012. México: Coordinación de Comunicación Social del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 2012;207-215.

  21. Villa Romero AR, Moreno Altamirano L, García de la Torre GS. Epidemiología y estadística en Salud Pública. México:McGraw-Hill- Interamericana, 2011.

  22. Mejía-Aranguré JM, Fajardo-Gutiérrez A, Gómez-Delgado A, Cuevas-Urióstegui ML, Hernández-Hernández DM, Garduño- Espinoza J, et al. El tamaño de muestra: un enfoque práctico en la investigación clínica pediátrica. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex 1995;52:381-391.

  23. Sherrill JT, Sommers DI, Nierenberg AA, Leon AC, Arndt S, Bandeen-Roche, et al. Reintegrating Statistical and Clinical Research Elements in Intervention-Related Grant Applications: Summary from an NIMH Workshop. Acad Psychiatry 2009;33:221-228.

  24. Cummings SR, Hulley SB. Redacción y financiación de una propuesta de investigación. En: Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG y Newman TM, editores. Diseño de Investigaciones Clínicas. Estados Unidos: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007;339- 355.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com