<p>Hi everyone,</p>
<p>What is the difference between clinical research and ordinary research? How do you go about obtaining a clinical research experience? Is it easier to get published in clinical research than in ordinary research?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>What the heck is "ordinary" research?</p>
<p>1.) Clinical research means that the technologies or ideas are actually being tried out on human patients.</p>
<p>2.) "Basic science" research -- often just abbreviated "basic" -- involves laboratory discoveries, using cell lines or animal models.</p>
<p>It is much easier to get published in clinical research. This is widely known, and therefore clinical research publications matter much less than basic ones.</p>
<p>Still though, we've talked about this point before - do medical schools really weigh one type of research over another? In the past we've said that (MD/PhD students excluded) research is research and it's hard to differentiate if one type of basic science research is better than another. </p>
<p>Further, if you're wanting to "sell" your experience and how it's going to make you a better physician, then doing clinical research may be an easier explanation.</p>
<p>Right. I'd say that the advantage of easier pubs and disadvantage of ... well, easier pubs probably cancel out pretty much correctly. So do what you want to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1.) Clinical research means that the technologies or ideas are actually being tried out on human patients.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you do not necessarily have to be trying anything out on human patients. You will only be doing so in experiments which are rare, take years, and are very expensive. However there are observational studies which are much more common and do not involve giving patients any sort of intervention. </p>
<p>I agree with BDM that it is easier to get published in clinical research but really its not THAT much easier. Plus the content of the publication will be more easily scrutinized by the title since clinical research requires less expertise to understand. The problem with lab/bench/basic research is that you could do it for four years and not have anything to show for it....you might have just been chasing something unattainable or simply incorrect for a long time. </p>
<p>It just boils down to what you are more interested in doing though....you shouldn't base what you do on what looks best....if you enjoy it it'll show and that'll be a plus.</p>
<p>Re: Observational vs. Experimental: Sorry. That's an important correction and a serious error on my part. Thanks for having my back.</p>
<p>no prob buddy.....it is my field now so i better know it well lol</p>