How to organize its own research and not get lost in the interpretation of others

All of us in his own practice to a greater or lesser extent based on information extraneous research published in journals or presented at scientific conferences. Rare oncologist now applies only recommendations "senior comrades" and circulars superiors. In our work, almost always have a place creativity, albeit based on an analysis of the results of foreign studies.

On what we pay attention to when analyzing the results?

At p <0,0001?

On the number of patients in the study?

The frequency of remission?

What do you really need to pay attention, in order not to fall prey to strangers or someone else's delusions of vanity?

How to avoid harm to patients, taking the total truth, which, though published in prestigious foreign journals, and he is clearly tentative (and the author forgot or did not want to write about it)?

Moreover, a special turn of its own activities, many doctors come to the conclusion that the results of clinical studies conducted by others, for them is not enough. And begin to meet. Let us remember how we conducted our own detailed study, for example, for a thesis or article in a magazine. The beginning of the study, for sure, put the visit the head office (blades) to an international conference (possible options: your visit to the conference, read by you or your leader article in the international journal). At this conference (in this magazine) was presented interesting for you (your head) a detailed study, the results of which would like to verify (confirm play) on your own experiment. Although it is likely that initiate a detailed investigation and prompted the unresolved issue of clinical practice, not previously reported in the available literature. In addition to this, the reason for the initiation of a detailed study is quite often unexpectedly received antitumor effect of therapy, which is designated "out of desperation. Following the data is usually generated by a detailed study plan, which is an intention to treat some patients and see what this happens. Probably more than that at the beginning of a detailed study on the image and likeness of international research is the criteria for inclusion, exclusion, treatment plan (but not so rigid or overly-binding further performance - we have not the West, there is no auditor). The control group, randomization - why? If we can get enough from our point of view, the effect can be to find a comparison group of those whom we have been treated previously. How including patients? Well ... Man 20 (versions 15, 30). Why? Round number looks familiar (in the past, the study also had 15, 20, 30), about as many patients taking place in our center for a month (half a year, year). In addition to this, it is possible to limit the number of the drug (although this would have been given). Informed consent? Why, it's almost a standard method - wrote about him in two foreign articles (option: According to patients still have nothing to lose, and we offer them treatment). What is the phase of the study? Once the drug was used before, then at least clearly not the first. Randomization not, then not III. Then, the second. What are the objectives of the study? Let's take a little wider (frequency of remission, tolerability, overall survival, disease-free survival, toxicity, the effect of molecular markers, etc.). In the end, all that would not have p <0.05,>