Research Methods Library

A case report documents the clinical details of a single patient — their presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. In Ayurveda and traditional medicine, case reports are one of the most common first steps from clinical observation to published evidence. The key obligation is patient consent for publication and, usually, institutional sign-off.

• CARE guidelines — care-statement.org The international standard for reporting case reports. Includes a 13-item checklist and worked examples. Read this first.
• EQUATOR on CARE EQUATOR Network summary with links to the original paper and extensions, including the TCM-CARE extension relevant to traditional medicine cases.
• Gagnier et al. (2013) — Reporting guidelines for case reports (PubMed Central) The open-access paper that introduced the CARE guidelines. Background, rationale, and the checklist in full.
• ICMJE — Patient consent for publication The authoritative statement on what patient consent for a case report must cover. Essential reading before you submit a listing.

A case series describes outcomes in a group of patients who received the same intervention or who share a clinical feature. It is more powerful than a single case report but has no comparison group — a fact to state clearly in your paper, not hide. IEC review is almost always required.

• CARE (adapted for series) — EQUATOR Network The CARE checklist is the most commonly applied reporting standard for case series in traditional medicine — work through it and adapt items that assume a single patient.
• STROBE statement — strobe-statement.org STROBE covers observational epidemiology. If your series is large enough to be descriptive-epidemiological in character, STROBE is the checklist to follow.
• JBI Manual — Case series appraisal JBI's critical-appraisal criteria for case series explain what peer reviewers will look for — a useful guide for writing, not just reviewing.

A retrospective cohort study looks back at records (OPD registers, hospital files, databases) and follows a group of patients forward in time to see what happened. You're using data that already exists. The two key challenges are: whether the records are complete enough, and how to handle confounding without randomisation.

• STROBE (cohort) — strobe-statement.org The 22-item STROBE checklist for cohort studies. Work through every item before you write — it will reveal gaps in your data collection.
• RECORD extension — record-statement.org RECORD extends STROBE specifically for studies using routinely collected health data (registers, administrative records). Required when your primary source is an OPD register or EMR.
• Grimes & Schulz (2002) — Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes (BMJ) A clear, short primer on what a cohort study is and what it can and cannot prove. Good starting point if the design is new to you.
• Cochrane Handbook — Non-randomized studies Chapter 25 of the Cochrane Handbook explains the main biases in observational research, framed in plain language. Useful before your statistician reviews your data structure.

A descriptive or cross-sectional study captures a snapshot: who your patients were, what treatments they received, and what the outcomes looked like — without a formal comparison group or follow-up. It describes a clinical reality, and that description has value. The honest constraint is that it cannot establish cause and effect.

• STROBE (cross-sectional) — strobe-statement.org STROBE has a cross-sectional variant. Use the checklist to identify what information you need from your records before you begin extraction.
• RECORD extension — record-statement.org Required if your data comes from routinely collected records (OPD registers, hospital databases).
• Grimes & Schulz (2008) — Cross-sectional studies (BMJ) A short primer explaining what cross-sectional studies can and cannot say about cause and effect — useful for framing your results and discussion honestly.

A pilot RCT is a small, preliminary trial whose primary purpose is to test whether a full-scale RCT is feasible: Can you recruit enough patients? Can they adhere to the protocol? A pilot does not test efficacy — that's for the full trial. In India, any trial with patients must be registered with CTRI before enrolment begins.

• CONSORT — consort-statement.org The standard reporting checklist for randomized trials. Even for a pilot, following CONSORT is expected by most journals. Includes flow diagram template.
• CONSORT extension for pilots (BMJ, 2016) The specific CONSORT extension for pilot and feasibility trials. Explains what a pilot must report differently from a full RCT. Read this alongside the main CONSORT checklist.
• CTRI — Clinical Trials Registry India All interventional trials in India must be registered here before the first patient is enrolled. Registration is free. The wizard flags this requirement — use this link to begin.
• CONSORT extension for herbal interventions — EQUATOR Required when your intervention is an Ayurvedic or herbal preparation. Adds items on herb identity, quality, and preparation standardisation.

A quasi-experimental study compares groups or time-points to assess an intervention's effect, but without random assignment. Common designs include before-after studies, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies. They are more susceptible to confounding than RCTs, and the discussion section must acknowledge this honestly.

• TREND statement — EQUATOR Network TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs) is the main reporting standard for quasi-experimental public-health and clinical studies.
• Cochrane Handbook — Non-randomized studies (Chapter 25) Explains bias and confounding in non-randomized designs in accessible language — useful for preparing your methods section and anticipating reviewer questions.
• Bernal et al. (2017) — Interrupted time series (BMJ) If your design is a before-after or interrupted time series, this BMJ tutorial is one of the clearest introductions available.

In a prospective cohort study, you enrol patients now, define your exposure groups, and follow them forward to measure outcomes as they happen. Data quality is generally better than retrospective designs because you control what gets recorded — but it takes longer and requires IEC approval before you start.

• STROBE (cohort) — strobe-statement.org The same STROBE checklist applies to prospective designs. Working through it during protocol planning helps you design your data collection form correctly from the start.
• Grimes & Schulz (2002) — Cohort studies (BMJ) Explains the logic of cohort studies, what they can establish, and their main threats to validity. Short and practical.
• WHO ICTRP — trial registration Prospective observational studies involving clinical interventions should be registered. WHO ICTRP lists all national registries including CTRI.

A systematic review uses a pre-specified, reproducible search and selection process to synthesise all available evidence on a question. Done well, it is the most rigorous form of secondary research. The process is exacting — protocol, search strategy, screening, data extraction, and synthesis all follow explicit rules. Pre-registration of the protocol (on PROSPERO or OSF) is expected.

• PRISMA 2020 — prisma-statement.org The reporting standard for systematic reviews. Includes the 27-item checklist, the updated flow diagram, and worked examples. The 2020 version supersedes all earlier versions.
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews — training.cochrane.org The authoritative, freely available textbook on how to conduct a systematic review. You do not need to read it cover to cover — use it chapter by chapter as you work through your protocol.
• PROSPERO — international prospective register of systematic reviews Register your systematic review protocol here before you start screening. PROSPERO registration signals rigour and prevents post-hoc outcome switching. Free and fast.
• OSF — Open Science Framework Alternative to PROSPERO for protocol registration, especially for reviews that don't fit PROSPERO's scope. CollabScience uses OSF for certificate anchoring regardless — you'll be familiar with it by the end of the project.

A scoping review maps the existing evidence on a topic — what has been studied, how, and where the gaps are. It is less restrictive than a systematic review (it usually includes all study types) and does not produce a pooled effect estimate. It answers: "What do we know?" and "What don't we know?" — useful for Ayurveda topics where the evidence base is sparse or heterogeneous.

• PRISMA-ScR — EQUATOR Network The reporting extension for scoping reviews. Includes the 20-item checklist. Read alongside the main paper (Tricco et al., 2018) linked on this page.
• JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis — scoping reviews JBI's manual explains the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews — the most widely used framework after Arksey & O'Malley. Freely available.
• PROSPERO — protocol registration PROSPERO now accepts scoping review registrations. Protocol registration is recommended even for scoping reviews to establish your questions and methods in advance.

A narrative review surveys a topic and synthesises the author's interpretation of the literature. Unlike systematic reviews, the search and selection process is not exhaustively specified. This makes narrative reviews flexible but also susceptible to selection bias. Journals increasingly expect at least a documented search strategy and explicit inclusion reasoning — even for narrative formats.

• SWiM — reporting guideline for narrative synthesis SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) is the closest thing to a reporting standard for narrative and non-meta-analytic reviews. Use it to structure your methods section.
• Campbell et al. (2021) — SWiM reporting guideline (BMJ) The original paper introducing SWiM, with explanation of each item. Open access. Read this before drafting your methods section.
• Cochrane — What is narrative synthesis? A short plain-language explanation of what narrative synthesis means in practice and how it differs from statistical meta-analysis.

A classical-textual study analyses Sanskrit or classical-language sources — Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Ashtanga Hrdayam, Nighantus, and similar corpora — to extract, compare, or synthesise knowledge about formulations, treatments, or concepts. Reporting norms for this design are not yet standardised, which is exactly where a methodologist adds the most value.

• EQUATOR — guidelines in development No single reporting standard yet exists for classical-textual studies in Ayurveda. EQUATOR's "in development" list is the best place to watch for new standards as this field matures.
• Patwardhan et al. — Ayurveda and natural products drug discovery (PMC) A methodological discussion of how classical Ayurvedic knowledge can be systematically analysed — useful for framing the methods section of a textual study.
• PRISMA-ScR — when a textual study is also a scoping review If your classical study systematically surveys a body of texts (rather than analysing one source in depth), PRISMA-ScR provides the closest available reporting structure.

If your wizard result was "Manuscript support" — or if you simply want to understand the rules around who gets named as an author vs. who gets acknowledged — the resources here explain the international standards CollabScience enforces in every collaboration agreement.

• ICMJE — Defining the role of authors and contributors The four criteria that determine whether someone qualifies as an author under ICMJE rules — required reading for both researchers and contributors before any agreement is signed.
• CRediT taxonomy — credit.niso.org The 14-role taxonomy used in CollabScience agreements and contribution certificates. Every role is defined with examples. Use this to decide which roles accurately describe what each person did.
• COPE — Authorship and contributorship guidelines COPE's (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidance on authorship disputes, ghost authorship, and gift authorship — useful if a collaboration raises a disagreement about the byline.
• OSF — Open Science Framework Where your CRediT Contribution Certificate will be anchored at project completion. Signing up for an OSF account before submitting a listing means one less step later.