Abstract
Objectives Metrics and instruments can provide guidance for clinical researchers to assess their potential research projects at an early stage before significant investment. Furthermore, metrics can also provide structured criteria for peer reviewers to assess others’ clinical research manuscripts or grant proposals. This study aimed to develop, test, validate, and use evaluation metrics and instruments to accurately, consistently, and conveniently assess the quality of scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects.
Materials and Methods Metrics development went through iterative stages, including literature review, metrics and instrument development, internal and external testing and validation, and continuous revisions in each stage based on feedback. Furthermore, two experiments were conducted to determine brief and comprehensive versions of the instrument.
Results The brief version of the instrument contained three dimensions: validity, significance, and feasibility. The comprehensive version of metrics included novelty, clinical relevance, potential benefits and risks, ethicality, testability, clarity, interestingness, and the three dimensions of the brief version. Each evaluation dimension included 2 to 5 subitems to evaluate the specific aspects of each dimension. For example, validity included clinical validity and scientific validity. The brief and comprehensive versions of the instruments included 12 and 39 subitems, respectively. Each subitem used a 5-point Likert scale.
Conclusion The validated brief and comprehensive versions of metrics can provide standardized, consistent, and generic measurements for clinical research hypotheses, allow clinical researchers to prioritize their research ideas systematically, objectively, and consistently, and can be used as a tool for quality assessment during the peer review process.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The project is supported by a grant (R15LM012941) from the National Library of Medicine and partially under a grant (P20GM121342) from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the United States National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Ohio University Institutional Review Board (18-X-192) and Clemson University Institutional Review Board (IRB2020-056).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We revised the flow of the paper. More figures were added. Hopefully, the new version will explain the methodology we used in this study and the results more explicitly.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the correspondence author.
