Newly Published
Editorial Views  |   January 2019
Understanding Research Methods and the Readers’ Toolbox: A New Article Type
Author Notes
  • From the Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
  • Corresponding article on page 192.
    Corresponding article on page 192.×
  • Michael M. Todd, M.D., served as Handling Editor for this article.
    Michael M. Todd, M.D., served as Handling Editor for this article.×
  • Accepted for publication November 26, 2018.
    Accepted for publication November 26, 2018.×
  • Correspondence: Address correspondence to Dr. Kharasch: evan.kharasch@duke.edu
Article Information
Editorial Views / Education / CPD
Editorial Views   |   January 2019
Understanding Research Methods and the Readers’ Toolbox: A New Article Type
Anesthesiology Newly Published on January 9, 2019. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002588
Anesthesiology Newly Published on January 9, 2019. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000002588
The clinical and scientific questions addressed in Anesthesiology naturally change over time, as fields evolve, new observations and discoveries are made, conundrums are resolved, and new diseases, drugs, procedures, technologies, and questions arise. It is not only the questions that change, however. Research methods themselves evolve. Sometimes these new methods may be brought to bear on persisting problems, and other times new research techniques may spawn entirely new lines of investigation.
Evolving research methodology creates both opportunities and challenges for investigators and a different set of challenges for readers of the Journal. Longstanding recognition of the need for clinicians to maintain clinical competence, enable life-long learning, and enhance practice quality, led to the development of a vast industry dedicated to providing Continuing Medical Education. However, there is comparatively little opportunity for clinician or investigator consumers of new knowledge to keep abreast of new research techniques, either to understand the research literature or implement such methods in their studies. This gap exists across the spectrum from basic, clinical, and population (outcomes and health services) research.