Graduex Research Group

আপনার সাথেও এমন হয়েছে নাকি? কমেন্ট করে জানান....

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗜𝗖𝗢 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?

When I first started writing 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 for clinical studies, I often found myself stuck. My questions were either too broad or too short, and I couldn’t figure out how to narrow my focus.

That’s when I discovered the 𝗣𝗜𝗖𝗢 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 and then everything have been changed.

Let me explain how it worked for me:

I was working on a study about “type 2 diabetes”. My goal was to investigate how a new diet plan could impact patients’ blood sugar levels. But the challenge was crafting a question that was clear and specific enough to guide the research.

Here’s what I did:

I broke it down using 𝗣𝗜𝗖𝗢:

𝗣= 𝗣𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻/𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁/𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺
I started by identifying the group which I wanted to study. In this case, it was adults with 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 2 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗲𝘀. This made the target group clear from the start.

𝗜= 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻/𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲
Next, I focused on the treatment and I wanted to test the 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻. This would be the key factor I’d explore in the study.

𝗖= 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗻
Then I asked myself, “What should I compare this new diet to?” The obvious choice was the 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘁, which is widely used for managing blood sugar levels.

𝗢= 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲
Finally, I thought about the result I wanted to measure. For this study, it was 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀 and the primary goal for anyone managing diabetes.

After putting it all together, my research question became:

"𝗜𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 2 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀?"

Suddenly, everything was clear. The question was 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 and 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

Have you tried using PICO in your research? Please comment below.

5 Common Mistakes to Avoid in Research 𝗔𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁

When I first started writing research abstracts, I didn’t realize how critical this tiny section was.

I thought it was just a summary, how hard could it be? But I learned the hard way that a poorly written abstract can cost the readers, reviewers, and even publication opportunities.

Here are the 5 mistakes I made and how I corrected them:

1. 𝗕𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿

I used to fill my abstracts with broad, generic statements.

But later I started being specific. Now I clearly outline my research focus, so readers know what to expect from the first sentence.

2. 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀

At first, I tried to overfill every detail into the abstract.

Now, I realized the abstract is a specific summary. I removed the excess contents and kept it to the essentials; concise and to the point.

3. 𝗨𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗠𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗝𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗼𝗻

I made the mistake of writing only for research experts, assuming everyone reading my abstract would be familiar with technical terms.

But then I learned to simplify my language, making my research accessible to a wider audience without losing accuracy.

4. 𝗜𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲

Previously, my abstracts were all over the place and there was no clear flow.

After that, I began following a clear structure: background, methodology, key findings, and conclusion. Now, everything falls into place.

5. 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀

I used to focus too much on the background and methodology, forgetting the main thing people want which is the findings.

Now I always include the key results, making it clear what the reader will gain from the study.

𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀? 𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄, 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺?

Introduction vs. Literature Review: Where to Draw the Line

Ever feel stuck when deciding what goes in the introduction and what belongs in the literature review of your research? You’re not alone.

1️. Introduction:
This is where you set the stage.
➖ Explain why your research matters.
➖ Highlight the problem you’re solving.
➖ State your research objectives and hypothesis clearly.
In short: It’s about creating a roadmap for your reader.

2️. Literature Review:
This is where you build on existing research.
➖ Review the key studies that shaped your understanding.
➖ Identify gaps in the current research that your study addresses.
➖ Showcase the theoretical foundation of your work.
In short: It’s about contextualizing your research within the existing body of knowledge.

Pro Tip:
The introduction answers the "why" of your research.

The literature review answers the "what’s been done" before you.

Keep them distinct, but make sure they complement each other — your readers will thank you!

Where do you usually get stuck when writing these sections? Let’s cooment about it below!