Research Ideas in Sports Medicine

[ru4real1666]

Hey guys,

I'm going to be conducting some research in Ortho (specifically in Sports Medicine and Pediatrics). I was told by my mentor to come up with some ideas and some questions I wanted to investigate. I was wondering if anyone else has any questions or ideas that would be worth researching or they have been thinking about that we haven't quite figured out yet?

Thanks so much!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[massmocha]

Efficacy of hip scopes for femoroacetabular impingement

 

[truthseeker]

Is there any neurological re-growth into an ACL graft?

 

[massmocha]

Here's my suggestion:

Don't think about "questions that need to be answered." Think about "what kinds of issues can I reasonably investigate?"

First step is to look at what your resources are where you are doing your research. Is there a particular type of surgery that they perform a whole lot of? Do they keep a database of patients with validated outcome scores assessed at set time points after surgery? Do they have a cadaver lab with access to bodies and equipment that could be used for research? Do they have biomechanical testing equipment? What are your mentor's areas of interest?

Once you figure that out, then you can start formulating a research question. The question should be narrowly focused. "Is there neurological re-growth into an ACL graft?" is a very good research question (though likely difficult to answer). "Efficacy of hip scopes for femoro-acetabular impingement syndrome" is a very very bad question. The usual error people make is to come up with a research question that is extremely broad. Narrow. You want narrow.

Once you think you have a research question, you need to assess how much time you need versus how much time you have. The best studies are prospective, but these take a long time to complete. I am wrapping up a year of research. Two of my prospective studies have taken almost 6 months just to get approved by the IRB. They will likely still be going when I graduate (or they will have died). Retrospective studies are quicker, but you need to know if the charts/databases you are reviewing have the data you need to answer your question (attending surgeons frequently over-estimate the quality of their documentation; be weary of anyone who tells you that ROM, strength, and neurologic exams are all documented in the chart). Cadaver studies and biomechanical studies are very fast, especially if you have a technician who can help you with the specimens and machinery. However, they are very resource intensive, and many places do not have the infrastructure necessary to perform these studies.

Finally, make sure you do a very thorough literature review to see what others have published on your topic. There is nothing wrong with repeating someone else's study (especially in surgery, where the "surgeon" is an important but often under-appreciated variable). But you need to know what's been done, because it may prompt additional questions that you could answer in the same study.

Good luck.

Ouch... I was suggesting an area of research, not writing a thesis statement.

 

[CR7MedStudent]

Hey, how did you guys reach out to your research mentors? I'm still MS-2 and haven't met many ortho attendings yet. Would it be inappropriate to just email attendings on a research page directly? I think it is but I have read post on SDN of people doing this. The reason I ask is because my school has a specific ortho research coordinator for this exact purpose. The ortho research page even says to contact this person first.

 

[sgt pepper]

Hey, how did you guys reach out to your research mentors? I'm still MS-2 and haven't met many ortho attendings yet. Would it be inappropriate to just email attendings on a research page directly? I think it is but I have read post on SDN of people doing this. The reason I ask is because my school has a specific ortho research coordinator for this exact purpose. The ortho research page even says to contact this person first.

Yeah I would email the research coordinator. You could also email the chair of the department directly or the PD. They should have a rough idea of the projects going on in the department and who is conducting them. I ended up emailing the chair of our ortho department during M1. I met with him and ended up working on one of his projects.

 

[massmocha]

I agree, if they have a specific process in place for how to contact them about research I would go with what they tell you to do.

On a separate note, once you know you are definitely planning to apply for ortho, I would meet with the chair/PD to let them know that and ask for advice on how to strengthen your application, advice on where to do away rotations, etc.

 

[sgt pepper]

Dude. No.

If they took the time to designate a "research coordinator" and explicitly said "contact this person first" then that's exactly what he should do.

Departments do this because the PD and Department Head do not want to be contacted directly. If he contacts them directly, he is likely to get blackballed.

Sure. Like I said, I would definitely contact the research coordinator.. However, I don't think it's a bad idea to email the chair and PD. And I agree with massmocha, it's good to introduce yourself to them and let them know that you are interested in ortho and research within the department. Not sure how that would get you "blackballed."

 

[massmocha]

... Sounds like a terrible chief resident. Most department chairs and PDs are happy to meet with medical students interested in the field. Maybe this depends where you are (smaller/state programs?), but I have never spoken to a chief resident or attending/chair/PD who wasn't happy to talk to me about how to get involved in the department.

 

[massmocha]

Yes, I just matched, will be starting residency at a program known for being hierarchical. I get it. And when I was a rotating student I know my role and my place.

What I am saying is that he should talk to the coordinator about research, that's what I did, that is how I got involved in research.

Part Two: It is good to get to know people who have connections from your school, i.e. Chair, PD so that they can help advise you as you go along the unfamiliar process of navigating away rotations, getting letters, etc. If you want a generic recommendation letter "This kid did a rotation, I have never met him before" letter from the Chair who MUST write you a rec letter, then I recommend not meeting with the chair ever. If you want a chair that knows you and can write personally about his experiences with you, someone they have invested in making an orthopedic surgeon, I recommend you try to meet with them as soon as you have dedicated yourself to going into ortho.

Maybe you have a background at some malignant places, but one of the things that drew me to ortho is how down to earth the people are and how approachable attendings and residents can be. Yes, there is a time and place for hierarchy on rounds, in patient care, in the OR, but every medical student needs a hand up and a mentor to figure out how to get into the field.

Not sure why you're taking this so personal, I am giving my advice. You can give yours, this kid can figure out what he wants to do. Just as my experience is singular and not generalizable, neither is yours. He will benefit from multiple opinions.

 

[sgt pepper]

I'm going off of my experience as well. At my program we were encouraged to contact the PD/Chair to set up research opportunities. There were definitely attendings who were happy and willing to meet with med students to discuss projects even if they were "cold called." Obviously, if there is a research coordinator that should be contacted first, that's the way to go. But getting to know the higher ups can definitely have its advantages

And of course, it is important to respect the heirarchy and know your role, but the example of your chief is quite extreme and definitely does not seem like the norm, at least from my experience doing aways.