This document provides an overview of research in physiotherapy and the research process. It discusses why research is important, different levels of evidence, and the overall research process. Key aspects of the research process that are covered include formulating the research problem, reviewing relevant literature, research design, data collection and analysis, and reporting results. Different types of research designs are explained including descriptive research, exploratory research, explanatory research, and clinical study designs. Guidance is also provided on writing research proposals, conducting pilot studies, and writing research reports.

1. A.THANGAMANI RAMALINGAM
PT, MSc(PSY),PGDRM,ACS
atramalingam@gmail.com
RESEARCH MADE EASY

2.  Research –why?
 Research in physiotherapy-scenario
 Levels of evidence
 Overview
 Research process
 What is a research problem?
 Review of the related literature
 Research design
 Type of research
 Sampling design
 Observational design
 Statistical design
 Operational design
 Impact of a good research design
 Clinical study designs
 Research proposal
 Pilot study
 Reporting the research
Objectives

3.  Information to knowledge
 Empirical evidence creation/anecdotal
 Logical understanding /reasoning
Research –why?

4.  Unaware of research designs
 Struck with P<0.05
 Never quantify the effect of intervention
Research in
physiotherapy-
scenario

5. Systematic
review
Randomized
controlled trials
Cohort
studies Case series,
Case reports
Ideas
opinions
Levels of
Evidence

6. OVERVIEW

7. Research process
Research
problem/Question
Review of the
related literature
Formulating
hypotheses
Research design
Data collection
Data
analysis/results
Interpretation of
results
Solution and
conclusion

8.  Define the problem
 Statement of the problem (Given
,however and therefore format)
 Aims and objectives of the study
What is a
research
problem?

9.  A clear concise description of the
issue
 one or two sentences in length that
outlines the problem addressed by
the study
A good problem statement
 What is the problem?
 Who is the client?
 What form can the resolution be?
 Research-worthy problem statement should
address all six questions: what, how, where,
when, why, and who.

11. CHARACTERISTICS
OF A PROBLEM
Avoidance of
Moral or
Ethical
Judgements
The Problem
is Stated in
Question
Form
Empirical
Testability
Relationship
between
Variables

12.  Given
 However(Assumption)
 Therefore
 Kerlinger has identified three criteria
of good Problem Statements.
1. A problem should be
concerned with relation
between two or more
variables.
2. It should be stated “clearly
and unambiguously in
question form.”
3. It should be amenable to
empirical testing.
Statement of
purpose and
objectives of
research problem

13. Review of the
related literature
 Search for review of the literature
 What is review of literature and its
purpose
 Structure of the literature review

14. )
 DynaMed
(www.dynamicmedical.c
om/)
 Essential Evidence Plus
(www.infopoems.com/)
 Cochrane Library
(www.cochrane.org/)
 Database of Abstracts of
Reviews of Effectiveness
(www.crd.york.ac.uk/crd
web/)
 FPIN (www.fpin.org/)
 Clinical Evidence
(www.clinicalevidence.c
om/)

15. Reasons/purpose
 Explaining to the reader what the problem is that
you’re tackling.
 Explaining which approaches have been tried before.
 Explaining why they failed (otherwise it would be
solved and no longer a problem).
 Explaining what your approach will be.
 Explaining the background to your approach
(previous work, etc.).
 Provide a context for the research
 Justify the research
 Ensure the research hasn't been done before (or that
it is not just a "replication
 study")
 Show where the research fits into the existing body
of knowledge
 Enable the researcher to learn from previous theory
on the subject
 Illustrate how the subject has been studied previously
 Highlight flaws in previous research
 Outline gaps in previous research
 Show that the work is adding to the understanding
and knowledge of the field
 Help refine, refocus or even change the topic

16. The process
 what you search
 what you search it for
 how you search it.
 The process of reviewing the literature
requires different kinds of activities and ways
of thinking
 Benjamin Bloom’s revised taxonomy of the
cognitive domain (ways of thinking):
remembering, understanding, applying,
analyzing, evaluating, and creating

17. Sources Used in
Medline ,science direct, Biomed central Medicine
Embase Biomedical &pharmacology
CINAHL Nursing and allied health
Psych INFO Psychology
ERIC Education related
Pedro Physiotherapy related
World cat database.
WWW.worldlib.com
www.Qspace.library.queensu.ca
www.inflibnet.ac.in, www.vidhyanidhi.org.in,
www.mgutheses.in , www.sodhganga.in ,
www.openthesis.org .
For dissertations, theses and abstracts
Archives of physical medicine and
rehabilitation
For conference publications
Index of scientific and technical proceedings
(ISTP)
For published contents in conferences

19. Blue print
Direction
Research design

20. Reality Perceived
reality

21. Research design
 Answers all type of WH questions
 Components of research design
( Type of research, sampling,
observational, statistical and
operational)
 Principles of designs Eg:
randomization,control, etc

22. Type of research

24. Descriptive
research

25. Explorative
research

26. Explanatory
research

27. Sampling design
 Probability and non probality sampling
 Sample size
 Sampling error
 Sampling distributions

29. Observational design
(Data collection)
 Outcome measures -Selection
criteria
(Appropriateness,
Acceptability,Feasibility,Interpretab
ility, Precision,Reliability,Validity
and Responsiveness)
Fitzpatrick R et.al 1998
 Nominal /ordinal/numerical
 Measurement errors
(Errors of observation and non
observation)

33. Statistical design
Depends on
 Study design
 Scale of measurement/Type of
data ( nominal,ordinal &scale or
numerical)
 Sample size
Softwares

34. Tests to address the question: Is
there a difference between groups –
paired situation?
Tests to address the question: Is there a difference between
groups – unpaired (parallel and independent groups)
situation?

35. Tests to address the question: Is there an association
between variables?
Tests to address the question: Is there an
agreement between assessment
(screening / rating / diagnostic)
techniques?

37.  Procedures to implement the
research design(Data collection
form, data coding, etc)
 Time line
 Budget plan
Operational
design

38. Impact of a
good research
design

39. Clinical research design

40. Clinical study
design

41. Case series
case control
study

42. Ecological
cross sectional
study

43.  Retrospective
 Prospective
Cohort study

45. Experimental
study

46. Research
proposal
 A mini research content with out
discussion (80%)
 Format
 Guidelines

48. Pilot study
 Effect size calculation
 Sample size determination
 Hypothesis testing not possible,
cannot be generalized

50. Reporting the
research
 Follow the format – IMRAD
 Mechanics of writing
 Guidelines for reporting- ICMJE
Guidelines (http://www.icmje.org
or http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/un
iform_requirements.html)

51. Steps and
mechanics of
writing report
 Font size
 Theme of fond
 Page layout
 Head and foot notes
 Citation style
 Text alignment
 Punctuation /abbreviation
 Statistics
 Charts /graphs
 Rough and fair draft
 Index at the end

52. Significance of
report writing
 Generalisation /external validity

53. Before beginning,
answer the basic
questions
 What do I have to say?
 Is it worth saying?
 What is the right format for the
message?
 What might be right for the paper
edition of the publication and what
for the Web edition?
 What is the audience for the
message?
 What is the right journal for the
message?
 Another basic rule is to read the
instructions to authors by the journal

54. Introduction
 know your audience
 Tell readers why you have undertaken the
study
 Clarify what your work adds (new)
 Following the best advice/guidelines on
scientific writing for different kind of studies
 Keep it short
 Make sure that you are aware of earlier studies
 Be sure your readers are convinced of the
importance of your question, but don’t overdo
it
 Give the study’s design but not the conclusion
 Avoid Spinning sentences

55. Method section
 How the study was designed
• Keep the description brief
• Say how randomisation was done
• Use names to identify groups or sections
of a study
 How the study was carried out
• Describe how the participants were
recruited and chosen
• Give reasons for excluding participants
• Consider mentioning ethical features
• Give accurate details of materials used
• Give exact drug dosages
• Give the exact form of treatment and
accessible details of unusual apparatus
 How the data were analysed
• Use a P-value to disprove the null
hypothesis
• Give an estimate of the power of the
study (the likelihood of a false negative
– the β error)
• Give the exact tests used for statistical
analysis (chosen a priori)
 A good methods section can answer
these questions
• Does the text describe what question was
being asked ,what was being tested
how trustworthy are the measurements?
• Were the measurements recorded,
analysed and interpreted correctly?
• Would a suitably qualifi ed reader be able
to repeat the experiment in the same way?

56. Result section
• Account for all subjects in the
study and double check that the
number of subjects is consistent in
the abstract, text, tables and figures.
• Be concise and emphasise the
important findings.
• Do not repeat information
provided in the tables.
• Minimise abbreviations.
• Describe the results from each
table or figure in a separate
paragraph.
• Begin each paragraph with a topic
sentence but do not simply repeat
the table or figure legend.
• Importantly, the results should be
interpreted in the discussion, not in
the results section.

57. Hints on
constructing
tables
• Make the tables visually easy to read.
• Begin each table on a separate page and number in the order
referenced in the
text.
• Do not repeat data in more than one table or figure.
• Place only one value in each table cell.
• Provide a concise legend that summarises the content of the
table.
• Provide definitions of each abbreviation in the table legend or
footnote so the
reader does not have to refer to the text.
• Include a heading for each column and clearly denote the
number of subjects in
each group ( ‘n’).
• P-value for comparison as an annotation with the actual value
provided in a
footnote may be appropriate when there are few comparisons.
• More detailed comparisons warrant a separate column that lists
all P-values.
• Provide the actual P-value, not terms such as ‘P = NS’ or ‘P >
0.05’.
• Provide units of measurement, preferably within parentheses
after the variable in the row heading.

58. Advice for
preparing
figures and
illustrations
 Use scientific graphics programmes, not simple graphics
generated from a spread sheet.
 If using colours, keep the background white, and avoid yellow and
other colours that are difficult to see.
 Axes of line drawings should be black and not less than 0.25 pt.
 If scanning a hard copy of a figure, submit as TIFF or JPEG (not
PowerPoint) with at least 600 dpi and 15 -cm/6-inch margin.
 Label all axes clearly.
 Figures should be numbered in the order that they appear in the
text.
 Provide a legend for each figure that describes the data and all
annotations.
 Figures should stand alone; the reader should not need to refer
to text for definitions.
 Permission to reproduce a figure is necessary, and the source
should be stated clearly in the figure legend.
 Consider including supplemental tables, graphs, appendices and
video or audio material to augment the results and understanding
of a study.
 Video formats are usually MPEG -4, QuickTime or Windows
Media Video.
 Limit video clips to 15 –25s with resolution of 480 × 360 and 640
× 480 pixels.
 Preferred audio formats include WAV or MP3.
 Refer to journal preference for submitting video or audio material
(i.e. CD or DVD)

59. Writing discussion
 Summarise the major findings
 Discuss possible problems with the
methods used
 Compare your results with
previous work
 Discuss the clinical and scientific
(if any) implications of your
findings
 Suggest further work
 Produce a succinct conclusion

60. Titles, abstracts
and authors
 Information that should be included in your abstract
Do:
• Provide a clear indication of what the reader can expect from
your paper.
• Indicate why the reader should care to read further.
• List the key methodological details required to understand
both how your
study addresses the research question and what to expect of
the results.
• Describe the results that directly answer the research
question (usually
including actual values for quantitative studies).
• Summarise the paper with the take home message of
greatest
importance.
Do NOT:
• Meander into peripheral issues.
• Attempt to comprehensively describe every feature of your
methodology.
• Present the first section of your results. Generally the results
section in the
body of your paper will offer a description of your participants.
While that
is important it is not usually the focus of the study.
• List generic statements that could apply to any paper (e.g.
‘We will conclude
with a discussion of our results ’).

61. title
and
abstract
Do:
 Follow the journal ’s format/length requirements.
 Write in plain English.
 Use terms that are likely to be used by colleagues
when searching for papers.
 Be provocative and enticing.
 Concentrate on distilling the essence of your paper.
 Indicate how your data fill a void in the literature.
 Think carefully about who you hope will read your
paper (i.e. identify your audience) and write for them.
Do NOT:
 Promise things your data cannot provide.
 Use jargon extensively.
 Be too cute with your title. Catchy is good, but not at
the expense of occluding the content of your paper.

62. abstracts and
titles
 Browse articles published by the journal to which you
want to submit to identify implicit expectations of the
journal that might extend beyond the explicit
expectations included in the journal ’s author
guidelines.
 Write your title and abstract a few different ways to
determine which one best aligns with the way you want
to represent your paper.
 Read a lot in a deliberate attempt to identify and craft
the style with which you are most comfortable.
 Read through your paper and highlight the crucial
sentences, then use that list to confirm that the key
details (and only the key details) are included in your
abstract.
 Set deadlines well in advance of the external deadline
you are trying to meet. You need time away from your
abstract after drafting it to enable you to appreciate
how well it flows to someone who was not inside your
head when you were writing it.
 Take advantage of the wisdom of crowds by asking
many people with diverse backgrounds and variable
degrees of expertise to offer independent opinions on
your title/abstract. Again, make sure you do so early
enough that you can revise based on their feedback.

63. Contributor ship
 Byline: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
Contributors:
A carried out the trial, helped in data analysis and wrote
the
paper.
B was involved in the design, implementation and data
analysis, and
contributed to the writing of the paper.
C was involved in the execution of the trial, data
management and analysis, and quality assurance of the
turnip assay.
D was involved in the trial execution and data entry,
management
analysis and quality assurance.
E was involved in the trial execution and data
management with emphasis on analysis.
F and G were involved in the design and contributed to
the writing of the paper.
H was involved in the design, implementation, analysis
and biochemical interpretation, and contributed to the
writing of the paper.
Guarantors: A and H

64. Acknowledgements
 According to Vancouver
At an appropriate place in the article (the title page
footnote or an appendix to the text; see the journal ’s
requirements), one or more statements should specify (1)
contributions that need acknowledging but do not justify
authorship, such as general support by a departmental chair;
(2) acknowledgements of technical help; (3)
acknowledgements of financial and material support, which
should specify the nature of the support; and (4) relationships
that may
pose a conflict of interest.
Persons who have contributed intellectually to the
paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may
be named and their function or contribution described – for
example, ‘scientific adviser ’, ‘critical review of study
proposal’, ‘data collection ’ or ‘participation in clinical trial ’.
Such persons must have given their permission to be named.
Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission from
persons acknowledged by name, because readers may infer
their endorsement of the data and conclusions.
Technical help should be acknowledged in a paragraph
separate from that
acknowledging other contributions.

65. Bad Samples
Small Samples
Misleading Graphs
Pictographs
Distorted Percentages
Loaded Questions
Order of Questions
Refusals
Correlation & Causality
Self Interest Study
Precise Numbers
Partial Pictures
Deliberate Distortions
Poor reporting

66.  Chidambaram AG, Josephson M. Clinical research study designs: The essentials. Pediatr
Invest. 2019;3:245-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ped4.12169