Common Pitfalls When Reporting General Practice/Family Medicine Research: Simple Recommendations to Prevent Them

Many guidelines websites and editorials have addressed the subject of how to write a scientific paper for peer-reviewed journals by focusing on its structure, format, and content [1-3] as well as of how to report research findings [4-6]. A new Journal on General Practice has been launched, and this short opinion does not intend to repeat all this guidance that has been written and circulated on the internet. It aims to collect the experience gained from my personal work as an editor and reviewer of many original papers compiled by general practitioners that addresses the common pitfalls encountered when reporting their research findings in international peer-reviewed journals. It does not include specific guidance on reporting observational, intervention, diagnostic studies, and systematic reviews of meta-analyses; this guidance is now contained in internationally accepted statements [711]. However, it can be utilized as an easy checklist of steps and actions that may facilitate the primary care practitioner to successfully report his/her research findings. Upon this framework and quite empirically, common pitfalls when general practice/family medicine research is in the process to be reported can be classified into two categories; those prior to the compilation of the original paper and those after its completion. The first group usually includes major and frequently not subjected corrections for pitfalls that can be seen as pitfalls resulting from wrong decisions. Examples of those pitfalls included decisions to report any research findings without: (1) A written clinical protocol: A written clinical protocol or a simple frame with terms of reference where the research questions, a clear overall aim with distinct objectives, methods, the expected impact of the study, and the core research group could facilitate and guide the study implementation, while it is a form of contract between the members of the research group and the scientific community. In generally, this reflects the principles of the collaboration between the principal investigator with the members of the research group, the administrators and the members of the bioethical committee that this protocol should be submitted for approval. Today, many peer-reviewed journals encourage the researchers to submit their clinical protocol for review. (2) A bio-ethical approval: It is essential to obtain permission from a bioethical committee upon the existing regulations and considerations in each national setting, even when a medical audit study is considered. The need of a written patient consent is clearly emphasized. The researchers are invited to read carefully the guidelines issued by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) [10], where either guidance for peer reviewers, new editors and new researchers are included. (3) Permission from the developers for implementing of any questionnaire or tool: It is essential to obtain permission from the developers of the questionnaire or tools utilized in the study to collect the data. The questionnaires written in the English language should be translated bilingually in the home language and at least they would be culturally adapted before any check of their psychometric properties.