Tıp Alanındaki Bilimsel Araştırma Tasarımları
Synopsis
Bu metin, tıp alanındaki epidemiyolojik araştırma tasarımlarını gözlemsel ve deneysel çalışmalar olmak üzere iki ana grupta inceleyerek bu yöntemlerin avantaj ve dezavantajlarını detaylandırmaktadır. Gözlemsel çalışmalar altında vaka raporları, vaka-kontrol, kohort ve kesitsel araştırmalar ele alınırken, deneysel çalışmalarda ise randomize kontrollü çalışmaların nedensellik kurmadaki gücü vurgulanmaktadır. Ayrıca, mevcut literatürün sentezlenmesinde kritik öneme sahip olan sistematik derleme ve meta-analiz yöntemlerinin teknik gereklilikleri ve bilimsel kanıt piramidindeki yerleri açıklanmaktadır.
This text examines epidemiological research designs in the field of medicine by categorizing them into observational and experimental studies, detailing the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Within observational studies, case reports, case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional research are discussed, while the strength of randomized controlled trials in establishing causality is emphasized under experimental studies. Additionally, the technical requirements and the roles of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the pyramid of scientific evidence are explained as essential methods for synthesizing current literature.
References
Hajat C. An introduction to epidemiology. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;713:27-39.
Rothman KJ. Epidemiology : an introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012.
World Medical A. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4.
Gopikrishna V. A report on case reports. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(4):265-71.
Pierson DJ. Case reports in respiratory care. Respir Care. 2004;49(10):1186-94.
Tenny S, Kerndt CC, Hoffman MR. Case Control Studies. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL)2022.
Levin KA. Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evid Based Dent. 2006;7(1):24-5.
Wang X, Cheng Z. Cross-Sectional Studies: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations. Chest. 2020;158(1S):S65-S71.
Ahlbom A. Modern Epidemiology, 4th edition. TL Lash, TJ VanderWeele, S Haneuse, KJ Rothman. Wolters Kluwer, 2021. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021;36(8):767-8.
Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer. 1976;34(6):585-612.
Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23-9.
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106(3):485-8.
Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75(6):431-9.
Bailar JC, 3rd. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(8):559-61.
Kılıçkap, M. (2018). Meta-analizleri nasıl yorumlayalım: Türkiye’de kardiyovasküler risk faktörlerine yönelik yapılan meta-analizlerin metodolojik açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars, 46(7), 624-635.
De Luca G, Suryapranata H, Stone GW, Antoniucci D, Neumann FJ, Chiariello M. Adjunctive mechanical devices to prevent distal embolization in patients undergoing mechanical revascularization for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2007;153(3):343-53.
De Luca G, Suryapranata H, Stone GW, Antoniucci D, Biondi-Zoccai G, Kastrati A, et al. Coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-regression analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol. 2008;126(1):37-44.
