Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Study planning—what must be considered?

Planung einer Studie – was ist zu berücksichtigen?

  • AGA-Komitee-Hefte
  • Published:
Arthroskopie Aims and scope

Abstract

This article provides an overview of planning the steps required to conduct a scientific study. In order to conduct a study safely, reliably, and ethically, planning is an essential aspect of the research process. It is the foundation of scientific research and helps scientists determine the scope of the study, identify research questions or hypotheses, select appropriate methods, and obtain an overview of necessary resources and requirements before the study begins, to avoid errors later on.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel bietet eine Übersicht über die Planung der einzelnen Schritte zur Durchführung einer wissenschaftlichen Studie. Die Planung ist ein wesentlicher Aspekt des Forschungsprozesses, um eine Studie sicher, zuverlässig und ethisch einwandfrei durchzuführen. Sie ist die Grundlage wissenschaftlicher Forschung und hilft Wissenschaftlern, den Umfang der Studie festzulegen, Forschungsfragen oder Hypothesen zu identifizieren, geeignete Methoden auszuwählen und einen Überblick über erforderliche Ressourcen und Anforderungen vor Beginn der Studie zu beschaffen, um Fehler im späteren Studienverlauf zu vermeiden.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akobeng AK (2005) Understanding randomised controlled trials. Arch Dis Child 90(8):840–844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG (1980) Statistics and ethics in medical research. Misuse of statistics is unethical. Br Med J 281(6249:1182–1184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Altman DG (1991) Ebscohost. Practical statistics for medical research, 1st edn. Chapman and Hall, London ; New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aslam A, Imanullah S, Asim M, El-Menyar A. Registration of Clinical Trials (2013) Is it Really Needed? N Am J Med Sci 5(12):713–715

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dettori J (2010) The random allocation process: two things you need to know. Evid Based Spine Care J 1(3):7–9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Eng J (2003) Sample size estimation: how many individuals should be studied? Radiology 227(2):309–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Faller H (2004) Significance, effect size, and confidence interval. Rehabil (stuttg) 43(3):174–178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Farrokhyar F, Reddy D, Poolman RW, Bhandari M (2013) Why perform a priori sample size calculation? Can J Surg 56(3):207–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Halpern SD, Karlawish JH, Berlin JA (2002) The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 288(3):358–362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Krummenauer F, Kauczor HU (2002) Sample size determination in reference-controlled diagnostic trials. Rofo 174(11):1438–1444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Machin D, Machin D (1997) Sample size tables for clinical studies, 2nd edn. England ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. May WW (1975) The composition and function of ethical committees. J Med Ethics 1(1:23–29

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Misra S (2012) Randomized double blind placebo control studies, the “Gold Standard” in intervention based studies. Indian J Sex Transm Dis Aids 33(2):131–134

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA (1994) Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272(2):122–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2012) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 10(1):28–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nardini C (2014) The ethics of clinical trials. ecancer 8:387

    Google Scholar 

  17. Palmer CR (1993) Ethics and statistical methodology in clinical trials. J Med Ethics 19(4):219–222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sackett DL (1979) Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 32(1–2:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312(7023):71–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Schäfer HBJ, Biebler K‑E et al (1999) Empfehlungen für die Erstellung von Studienprotokollen (Studienplänen) für klinische Studien. Inform Biometrie Epidemiol Medizin Biol 30:141–154

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shore BJ, Nasreddine AY, Kocher MS (2012) Overcoming the funding challenge: the cost of randomized controlled trials in the next decade. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(Suppl 1):101–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Suresh K (2011) An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci 4(1):8–11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Vavken P (2011) Rationale for and methods of superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence designs in orthopaedic, controlled trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2645–2653

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Sports Traumatology, BG Klinikum Hamburg, Bergedorfer Straße 10, 21033, Hamburg, Germany

    Lena Eggeling

Authors
  1. Lena Eggeling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

the AGA Research Committee

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Eggeling.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

L. Eggeling and the AGA Research Committee declare that they have no competing interests.

For this article no studies with human participants or animals were performed by any of the authors. All studies mentioned were in accordance with the ethical standards indicated in each case.

Additional information

Redaktion

D. Günther, Köln

E. Herbst, Münster

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

figure qr

Scan QR code & read article online

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eggeling, L., the AGA Research Committee. Study planning—what must be considered?. Arthroskopie (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00142-024-00686-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00142-024-00686-7

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation