Cargando…
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs
Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8728594/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34962112 http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e338 |
_version_ | 1784626771402948608 |
---|---|
author | Misra, Durga Prasanna Gasparyan, Armen Yuri Zimba, Olena Yessirkepov, Marlen Agarwal, Vikas Kitas, George D. |
author_facet | Misra, Durga Prasanna Gasparyan, Armen Yuri Zimba, Olena Yessirkepov, Marlen Agarwal, Vikas Kitas, George D. |
author_sort | Misra, Durga Prasanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8728594 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87285942022-01-12 Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs Misra, Durga Prasanna Gasparyan, Armen Yuri Zimba, Olena Yessirkepov, Marlen Agarwal, Vikas Kitas, George D. J Korean Med Sci Review Article Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin). The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences 2021-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8728594/ /pubmed/34962112 http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e338 Text en © 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Misra, Durga Prasanna Gasparyan, Armen Yuri Zimba, Olena Yessirkepov, Marlen Agarwal, Vikas Kitas, George D. Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs |
title | Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs |
title_full | Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs |
title_fullStr | Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs |
title_full_unstemmed | Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs |
title_short | Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs |
title_sort | formulating hypotheses for different study designs |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8728594/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34962112 http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e338 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT misradurgaprasanna formulatinghypothesesfordifferentstudydesigns AT gasparyanarmenyuri formulatinghypothesesfordifferentstudydesigns AT zimbaolena formulatinghypothesesfordifferentstudydesigns AT yessirkepovmarlen formulatinghypothesesfordifferentstudydesigns AT agarwalvikas formulatinghypothesesfordifferentstudydesigns AT kitasgeorged formulatinghypothesesfordifferentstudydesigns |