Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Hi,
I am currently studying at the University of South Australia and would love to find out if anyone new of some good and bad examples of experimental papers published over the past few years..
I'm trying to get a feel for key indicators such as Authors, headings or topics that can easily differentiate between a well written reliable experiment and one with a lot of bias.

Any help would be greatly appreciated
Cheers

 

Here are two I commented on at the time:
Shockwave therapy for Morton's neuroma
Plantar fasciitis symptoms and two different running shoes

Both studies probably got the opposite results of what they reported.

 

Do people tend to read the Method first?

 

Thanks Craig Very helpful..
Do you know of any notable RCTs that portray a very strong study design and methodology....

cheers
Jarrod

 

Try these two:
Effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention to prevent falls in community dwelling older people with disabling foot pain: randomised controlled trial
Lateral wedge insoles for medial knee osteoarthritis: 12 month randomised controlled trial

 

For dodgy methodology and misleading abstracts, try some of the "research" on Marigold extract for bunions.

Reduces the IM angle you know...:pigs:

 

Anecdotally, many still only scan the abstract then straight to the results/discussion. If the method is flawed then what follows is meaningless, no? That 'lateral wedge' intervention trial would be excellent for students (like myself) for methodology, mark

 

Thanks a million guys, you are right Mark when there is no foundation its hard to see any solid reputable results... Thanks so much for your help Craig.. The paper on lateral wedges displays a vast difference compared to some of the poorer rcts i have read..

Are there any set guidlines that can be followed to differentiate between poorly written RCTs and well written ones.

Jarrod