Basic Science Research vs Chart Reviews

[AspiringOne]

So I've heard that in the hierarchy of research, basic science is viewed "most highly." I've recently become involved with research projects in both Ortho and Rads because I'm interested in both those fields. However, both projects are retrospective chart reviews.

My question is, if I wanted to apply to one of those fields in the future, is it okay if my research is only chart reviews? Is it better to have basic science research experience in any field vs chart review/case study research experience in the field you wish to apply to?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[drizzt3117]

So I've heard that in the hierarchy of research, basic science is viewed "most highly." I've recently become involved with research projects in both Ortho and Rads because I'm interested in both those fields. However, both projects are retrospective chart reviews.

My question is, if I wanted to apply to one of those fields in the future, is it okay if my research is only chart reviews? Is it better to have basic science research experience in any field vs chart review/case study research experience in the field you wish to apply to?

My understanding is that ortho is a pretty clinical research heavy field. Rads has quite a bit of basic science/transitional, but you need a strong quant background to do it.

 

[theVster]

The problem with basic science is that it takes a LONG time to actually get anything accomplished. If you actually have the time and think you can get something published out of it, sure, why not. If you don't, then go ahead and do the chart reviews... I would pick them personally because I don't have 2 extra years to get something accomplished

 

[jdh71]

So I've heard that in the hierarchy of research, basic science is viewed "most highly." I've recently become involved with research projects in both Ortho and Rads because I'm interested in both those fields. However, both projects are retrospective chart reviews.

My question is, if I wanted to apply to one of those fields in the future, is it okay if my research is only chart reviews? Is it better to have basic science research experience in any field vs chart review/case study research experience in the field you wish to apply to?

Chart reviews are completely and totally appropriate for medical student research.

 

[TheFlashMD]

The problem with basic science is that it takes a LONG time to actually get anything accomplished. If you actually have the time and think you can get something published out of it, sure, why not. If you don't, then go ahead and do the chart reviews... I would pick them personally because I don't have 2 extra years to get something accomplished

👍

Unless you already have experience (like already worked in that particular lab) basic science research between M1 and M2 is going to consist of 2 months actually getting acclimated to the lab and procedures. Then, 2 week-1 month of real work. And 1 month of real work most of the time isn't going to yield publishable data. Unless of course you get lucky. Not to say a a chart review is necessary a lock for a publication either.

 

[bonsaitree1]

👍

Unless you already have experience (like already worked in that particular lab) basic science research between M1 and M2 is going to consist of 2 months actually getting acclimated to the lab and procedures. Then, 2 week-1 month of real work. And 1 month of real work most of the time isn't going to yield publishable data. Unless of course you get lucky. Not to say a a chart review is necessary a lock for a publication either.

How does someone do a chart review? Do you just approach a clinician and be like "im interested in doing a chart review" and ask them for what's appropriate? or should i have an idea in mind and posit this in an email to the clinician?

 

[OPPforlife]

What happened to the good ole days when people did stuff because they wanted to not because they had to! haha but seriously, I think every one is correct in saying that clinical research is usually easier to get published in, but have you seen how boring it is?? I spent this past summer (between M1 and M2) working in a tissue engineering lab. Have I answered any meaningful questions? probably not. Will I get published? I wouldn't bet on it. Am I having a bad ass time because I get to play with sexy ass tools every day? (for example yesterday I was on the confocal and few weeks ago got to mess with a FACS) HECK YEAH!
So Bottom line, you should do what you find interesting. I think clinical research and chart review are extremely important, but only do it if you enjoy it. Thats my $.02.

 

[TheFlashMD]

How does someone do a chart review? Do you just approach a clinician and be like "im interested in doing a chart review" and ask them for what's appropriate? or should i have an idea in mind and posit this in an email to the clinician?

Check with your student affairs office or similar department for research opportunities.

If that doesn't lead anywhere, Pubmed search a few of the academic physicians in the department of your choice. You'll probably find a general theme of their research. Find a few that interest you. E-mail them, see if they have space/funding/project for you.

 

[tinery]

What happened to the good ole days when people did stuff because they wanted to not because they had to! haha but seriously, I think every one is correct in saying that clinical research is usually easier to get published in, but have you seen how boring it is?? I spent this past summer (between M1 and M2) working in a tissue engineering lab. Have I answered any meaningful questions? probably not. Will I get published? I wouldn't bet on it. Am I having a bad ass time because I get to play with sexy ass tools every day? (for example yesterday I was on the confocal and few weeks ago got to mess with a FACS) HECK YEAH!
So Bottom line, you should do what you find interesting. I think clinical research and chart review are extremely important, but only do it if you enjoy it. Thats my $.02.

confocal is awesome. the hours afterward spent on analyzing images...not so awesome.

the nitty gritty of basic science, no matter how interesting the topic, can be super boring and tedious too.

 

[OPPforlife]

confocal is awesome. the hours afterward spent on analyzing images...not so awesome.

I dont know, if your project is interesting enough and if you are the one who designed the experiment/carried it out results analysis can be pretty fun, especially with some thing like confocal. Now, if you are using AFM or some thing to do surface characterization, its a different story...talk about hardcore statistical analysis haha.

 

[theVster]

What happened to the good ole days when people did stuff because they wanted to not because they had to! haha but seriously, I think every one is correct in saying that clinical research is usually easier to get published in, but have you seen how boring it is?? I spent this past summer (between M1 and M2) working in a tissue engineering lab. Have I answered any meaningful questions? probably not. Will I get published? I wouldn't bet on it. Am I having a bad ass time because I get to play with sexy ass tools every day? (for example yesterday I was on the confocal and few weeks ago got to mess with a FACS) HECK YEAH!
So Bottom line, you should do what you find interesting. I think clinical research and chart review are extremely important, but only do it if you enjoy it. Thats my $.02.

I actually find the fact that basic sciences research takes such a long time boring in and of itself. Also you can only run so many western blots before the exciting part dies off quite quickly IMO... I know different stuff appeals to everyone but I never found basic science research that much fun personally. Some procedures are cool, and I like working with big instruments and such, but the actual process of going through 2-3 years of hard core research to discover a protein which is some alternatively spliced variant of an already existing protein which MIGHT have some vague clinical use... yeah screw that.

 

[OPPforlife]

I actually find the fact that basic sciences research takes such a long time boring in and of itself. Also you can only run so many western blots before the exciting part dies off quite quickly IMO... I know different stuff appeals to everyone but I never found basic science research that much fun personally. Some procedures are cool, and I like working with big instruments and such, but the actual process of going through 2-3 years of hard core research to discover a protein which is some alternatively spliced variant of an already existing protein which MIGHT have some vague clinical use... yeah screw that.

90% of the above statement is true, however, I would add that generally speaking Basic Science research is more intellectually demanding. Which can be fun. Its like solving a riddle.

 

[red10]

90% of the above statement is true, however, I would add that generally speaking Basic Science research is more intellectually demanding. Which can be fun. Its like solving a riddle.

or like spending a year putting together a 10,000 piece solid color puzzle only to find out that your dog ate the last few pieces. ahaha

 

[Caesar]

or like spending a year putting together a 10,000 piece solid color puzzle only to find out that your dog ate the last few pieces. ahaha

and you have to apply for funding and wait a year to hear if they will approve the money needed to find the 10 missing pieces.

 

[theVster]

90% of the above statement is true, however, I would add that generally speaking Basic Science research is more intellectually demanding. Which can be fun. Its like solving a riddle.

Haha I'm not denying it can be fun or tough on the brain, if you like what you're doing. I just don't have the patience for it.

Though very often the riddle's answer tends to be a "f*&& if i know", unfortunately.

 

[RxnMan]

So I've heard that in the hierarchy of research, basic science is viewed "most highly." I've recently become involved with research projects in both Ortho and Rads because I'm interested in both those fields. However, both projects are retrospective chart reviews.

My question is, if I wanted to apply to one of those fields in the future, is it okay if my research is only chart reviews? Is it better to have basic science research experience in any field vs chart review/case study research experience in the field you wish to apply to?

There is no version of research that is better than another (unless you are talking about ID "research", but that's another matter). I'll tell you that some academics will like basic science more*, but as one who has done basic science, clinical research, and worked at the NIH, med students should not worry about this issue. Most med students are "kicking the wheels" of research, and seeing if it's a good fit for them. Maybe getting some connections in the field. The clinical vs basic debate is above our pay grade. I would focus on getting a solid project, doing it well, knowing it inside and out, getting it published, and being able to succinctly convey why your results are important.

Lastly, chart reviews are totally appropriate for med students. Take a look at the Research FAQ for more info (link in my sig).

*I've met just as many academics who want to see applicable results (i.e. relevant clinical research) and look down on research on "some protein". Trying to satisfy everyone a priori is a losing proposition.

 

[pandoraone]

There is no version of research that is better than another (unless you are talking about ID "research", but that's another matter). I'll tell you that some academics will like basic science more*, but as one who has done basic science, clinical research, and worked at the NIH, med students should not worry about this issue. Most med students are "kicking the wheels" of research, and seeing if it's a good fit for them. Maybe getting some connections in the field. The clinical vs basic debate is above our pay grade. I would focus on getting a solid project, doing it well, knowing it inside and out, getting it published, and being able to succinctly convey why your results are important.

Lastly, chart reviews are totally appropriate for med students. Take a look at the Research FAQ for more info (link in my sig).

*I've met just as many academics who want to see applicable results (i.e. relevant clinical research) and look down on research on "some protein". Trying to satisfy everyone a priori is a losing proposition.

In talking to some Residency Directors about research and basic science, they often mention that med school could be the last time to do basic sci reserach unless you take time off in residency because it is so demanding. So in terms of that, getting onto a basic science paper or two can teach you how the research game is played and allows you to build up your credentials for future work in academic med