Cited by 734Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land

Grimes, David A, Schulz, Kenneth F·2002·The Lancet

Abstract

Many clinicians report that they cannot read the medical literature critically. To address this difficulty, we provide a primer of clinical research for clinicians and researchers alike. Clinical research falls into two general categories: experimental and observational, based on whether the investigator assigns the exposures or not. Experimental trials can also be subdivided into two: randomised and non-randomised. Observational studies can be either analytical or descriptive. Analytical studies feature a comparison (control) group, whereas descriptive studies do not. Within analytical studies, cohort studies track people forward in time from exposure to outcome. By contrast, case-control studies work in reverse, tracing back from outcome to exposure. Cross-sectional studies are like a snapshot, which measures both exposure and outcome at one time point. Descriptive studies, such as case-series reports, do not have a comparison group. Thus, in this type of study, investigators cannot examine associations, a fact often forgotten or ignored. Measures of association, such as relative risk or odds ratio, are the preferred way of expressing results of dichotomous outcomes-eg, sick versus healthy. Confidence intervals around these measures indicate the precision of these results. Measures of association with confidence intervals reveal the strength, direction, and a plausible range of an effect as well as the likelihood of chance occurrence. By contrast, p values address only chance. Testing null hypotheses at a p value of 0.05 has no basis in medicine and should be discouraged.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07283-5

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F.
Affiliations
Family Health International 360 (US)
Corresponding author
Grimes, David A
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-01
Volume
359
Issue
9300
Pages
57-61
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2163223903
Cited by
734
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 33
FWCI
4.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • The Lancet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
clinical research, research design, randomized controlled trials, observational studies, cohort studies, case-control study, cross-sectional study, case series, association measures, relative risk, odds ratio, confidence intervals, p-values, null hypothesis testing, critical appraisal of medical literature
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Research, Cohort Studies, Confidence Intervals, Case-Control Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review