Bench vs Clinical Research

[obgyny]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm a MS1 and I have a few questions about research and residency.

I worked full-time in a neuroscience lab (bench research) during my 2 years off (before med school). I was third author on a publication in a major neurosci journal and also co-author on an abstract for a big conference.

1. Would these publications help at all for my residency application? This was after college.

2. I also put in a lot of work into other projects. In one, I'll be either second/third author on a publication that will hopefully come out soon. Another one might be first co-author if things work out. Although I stopped working in this lab right before med school, if these publications are published while I'm in med school, could I put these on my application for residency?

3. My old PI has asked me to come back to do research again in his lab (same neurosci lab) over the summer (it's at the same university as my med school). If I do research in his lab, I wouldn't waste any time training. I enjoyed this research, but all I've ever done is bench research. Although I don't know much about it, I'm kind of curious to look into clinical research. Do residency programs look at clinical research differently than bench research? Is it more important to get publications than the type of research you do?

My old PI is optimistic I could get my name on a publication by the end of the summer, but he tends to be overly-optimistic . And you know how bench research is... But would it look better if I continued my research in the same lab? Or should I try something new?

Any advice as to what type of clinical research to get involved in?

I have absolutely no idea what specialty I'm interested in yet. I wouldn't even know what area to research in....

Thanks, I'd appreciate any advice!! Sorry about the long post!!

 

[Valadi]

Yes, yes, no, up to you. They look at the quality of the work over type. (eg, a retrospective chart review on 50 patients with metatastes < bench work elucidating metastatic pathway; prospective randomized study on drug Y in 1000 ptx > doing nmrs for a summer on the drug).

 

[obgyny]

Yes, yes, no, up to you. They look at the quality of the work over type. (eg, a retrospective chart review on 50 patients with metatastes < bench work elucidating metastatic pathway; prospective randomized study on drug Y in 1000 ptx > doing nmrs for a summer on the drug).

But which is more important, getting publications or the "quality" of the research? You say bench research would be more impressive than retrospective chart review, but bench research is way less likely to result in publication.

Also, does anyone recommend a type of clinical research to get involved in? I've only ever done bench research, so I don't even know where to begin...

I'd also really appreciate any more opinions/advice!

 

[Valadi]

Getting pubs trumps everything. If you'll get pubs with a lower quality study, then do that. Residencies look at your # of pubs while factoring in quality of work and prestige of the journal; but better to have pubs than none.

Bench is not always greater than retrospective/clinical. Again, it all boils down to quality and usefulness of the research. In my example, I said bench *elucidating a cancer pathway.* Pretty big deal. I also have a bench example that is not as good as a clinical one.

Your best bet is to contact someone in the department you're interested in and ask them what's going on and how you can get involved. Attend the grand rounds so your face gets known and keep saying your interested. Anything is better than nothing, something that will get published is better than anything, and a high quality publication is better than a low quality publication.

Types of clinical studies: A good idea would be to check out the Oxford Centre classification of evidence based medicine. Those are basically the types of studies you have open to you. As a med student, retrospective studies (grade 2B evidence) and below will be your best friend because they are quick and dirty to bang out. The higher up the evidence tree, the more time intensive. Another good option would be to get onto reviews and systematic reviews (grade 2A), but without the clinical knowledge, they are harder to do than just the data entry of a chart review.