Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Program Evaluation or Original Research?

Program Evaluation or Original Research? Editorial Progress in Transplantation 2021, Vol. 31(2) 99-100 ª 2021, NATCO. All rights reserved. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/15269248211003756 journals.sagepub.com/home/pit Let’s start this conversation with the caveat that retrospective A retrospective chart review is not a design. It is the source chart reviews have a place in our literature. While I may seem of the data to be collected. When I see this, it is hard not to critical, hear me out. It is difficult to claim that all retrospective make a few assumptions. This tells me that the investigators did chart reviews are research. An interesting finding in your data- not a priori determine a research question, how to strengthen set may be of importance, but based on the rigor of assessment, the generalizability of convenience sampling, nor determine one cannot claim it as research. the control for extraneous variables. Seeing a retrospective Progress in Transplantation offers the manuscript option for chart review says, we found something interesting in our pro- Program Evaluation as sharing single institutional self- gram and now we want to publish this as research. assessment can be valuable to others. Chart reviews begin Of course, authors are faced with limited submission with questions http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Progress in Transplantation SAGE

Program Evaluation or Original Research?

Winsett, Rebecca P.
Progress in Transplantation , Volume 31 (2): 2 – Jun 1, 2021
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/program-evaluation-or-original-research-fLq1VglF5B

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 2021, NATCO
ISSN
1526-9248
eISSN
2164-6708
DOI
10.1177/15269248211003756
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Editorial Progress in Transplantation 2021, Vol. 31(2) 99-100 ª 2021, NATCO. All rights reserved. Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/15269248211003756 journals.sagepub.com/home/pit Let’s start this conversation with the caveat that retrospective A retrospective chart review is not a design. It is the source chart reviews have a place in our literature. While I may seem of the data to be collected. When I see this, it is hard not to critical, hear me out. It is difficult to claim that all retrospective make a few assumptions. This tells me that the investigators did chart reviews are research. An interesting finding in your data- not a priori determine a research question, how to strengthen set may be of importance, but based on the rigor of assessment, the generalizability of convenience sampling, nor determine one cannot claim it as research. the control for extraneous variables. Seeing a retrospective Progress in Transplantation offers the manuscript option for chart review says, we found something interesting in our pro- Program Evaluation as sharing single institutional self- gram and now we want to publish this as research. assessment can be valuable to others. Chart reviews begin Of course, authors are faced with limited submission with questions

Journal

Progress in Transplantation – SAGE

Published: Jun 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.