journal article methodology example

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information
• Literature Review
• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary

Methodology

• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The methodology section or methods section tells you how the author(s) went about doing their research. It should let you know a) what method they used to gather data (survey, interviews, experiments, etc.), why they chose this method, and what the limitations are to this method.

The methodology section should be detailed enough that another researcher could replicate the study described. When you read the methodology or methods section:

• What kind of research method did the authors use? Is it an appropriate method for the type of study they are conducting?
• How did the authors get their tests subjects? What criteria did they use?
• What are the contexts of the study that may have affected the results (e.g. environmental conditions, lab conditions, timing questions, etc.)
• Is the sample size representative of the larger population (i.e., was it big enough?)
• Are the data collection instruments and procedures likely to have measured all the important characteristics with reasonable accuracy?
• Does the data analysis appear to have been done with care, and were appropriate analytical techniques used? 

A good researcher will always let you know about the limitations of his or her research.

• << Previous: Specialized Vocabulary
• Next: Results >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

How To Write a Methodology for a Publishable Journal Article

How To Write a Methodology for a Publishable Journal Article Writing about the significant results and exciting implications of advanced research necessitates writing about the methodology employed to achieve those results. Although a well-written methodology for an academic or scientific journal article may come across as straightforward and even simple, the process of writing it is usually neither. Research procedures are often complicated, and decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of details in the methodology written for an article can be as challenging as initial decisions about the research design were. Unfortunately, there is no single set of rules or practices that apply to every project or article: journal requirements vary, and each research project as well as its methodology is unique. The following tips therefore do not address every situation and possibility, but they do outline a number of common requirements and concerns for the scholarly author who is working to write a suitable and informative methodology for an article that will prove worthy of publication in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. • The heading, subheadings, length, content and arrangement of material for an article methodology varies among journals, so always read the author instructions or guidelines and follow them precisely to ensure that you write an acceptable methodology. • A research methodology section in a journal article should inform readers about exactly what was done during the research, including the initial preparations and the way in which information or evidence (data) was gathered or generated, measured and analysed. • A methodology should also offer a rationale for the research methods, so be sure to explain why the research design and individual procedures are appropriate for examining the problem investigated, answering the research questions or testing the hypotheses. • A discussion of the broader contexts of the methodology may be desirable. This might involve introducing theoretical concepts and situating the methodology within the body of current knowledge or practice through descriptions and citations of published studies. • Established methods in a field can usually be simply named or identified rather than described in detail, but if those methods have been modified in any way, the modifications will require more extensive explanation as well as some justification. • Instruments commonly used in the field need only be named in most cases, but new instruments developed or adapted for the research should be carefully explained, perhaps with illustrations. Readers should be told exactly how all instruments were used. • The subject or subjects studied should always be described. Whether the article reports medical research on human subjects or palaeographical research on ancient books, give all the details about the objects or individuals studied and explain why they were chosen. • The variables considered and manipulated should be introduced and discussed. Independent variables should be distinguished from dependent ones, and the risks and precautions associated with confounding variables should be disclosed and explained. PhD Thesis Editing Services • Study and control groups and categories should be described in detail. The criteria for selection and division should be explained with precision, and any changes or problems associated with groups and categories as the research progressed should be itemised. • If ethical approval or informed consent was required for the research, the fact that it was obtained as appropriate should be stated. The same is the case with any kind of approval or permission required to make use of instruments, methods or data in the research. • Remember that a methodology should let readers know that the research procedures used are consistent with sound and accepted practice in the field. Any procedures that may seem questionable should therefore be justified in relation to the research objectives, • A methodology should provide the information necessary for experts in the field to judge whether the methods used are valid, reliable and replicable. Providing the details required for such judgements, such as statements about limitations, is therefore imperative. • The written style of a methodology should be clear, direct and concise. Errors and ambiguities must be avoided to prevent confusion, and unnecessary words should be removed. The procedures described have been done, so the past tense is appropriate. • Like all parts of an academic or scientific article, a methodology should be carefully proofread, edited and revised before submission. Ensure that all mistakes are corrected and that procedures and processes are presented in a chronological or logical order. Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services? At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing , phd thesis editing and proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of academic manuscripts for successful publication. Many of the carefully trained members of our expert editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal editing standards to ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper are in conformity with the journal’s instructions for authors and to correct any grammar, spelling, punctuation or simple typing errors. In this way, we enable our clients to report their research in the clear and accurate ways required to impress acquisitions proofreaders and achieve publication.

Our scientific proofreading services for the authors of a wide variety of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also offer manuscript proofreading services and have the experience and expertise to proofread and edit manuscripts in all scholarly disciplines, as well as beyond them. We have team members who specialise in medical proofreading services , and some of our experts dedicate their time exclusively to PhD proofreading and master’s proofreading , offering research students the opportunity to improve their use of formatting and language through the most exacting PhD thesis editing and dissertation proofreading practices. Whether you are preparing a conference paper for presentation, polishing a progress report to share with colleagues, or facing the daunting task of editing and perfecting any kind of scholarly document for publication, a qualified member of our professional team can provide invaluable assistance and give you greater confidence in your written work.

If you are in the process of preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in a new book, Guide to Journal Publication , which is available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.

Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication

How to get your writing published in scholarly journals.

It provides practical advice on planning, preparing and submitting articles for publication in scholarly journals.

PhD Success

How to write a doctoral thesis.

If you are in the process of preparing a PhD thesis for submission, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in the book, How to Write a Doctoral Thesis , which is available on our thesis proofreading website.

PhD Success: How to Write a Doctoral Thesis provides guidance for students familiar with English and the procedures of English universities, but it also acknowledges that many theses in the English language are now written by candidates whose first language is not English, so it carefully explains the scholarly styles, conventions and standards expected of a successful doctoral thesis in the English language.

Why Is Proofreading Important?

To improve the quality of papers.

Effective proofreading is absolutely vital to the production of high-quality scholarly and professional documents. When done carefully, correctly and thoroughly, proofreading can make the difference between writing that communicates successfully with its intended readers and writing that does not. No author creates a perfect text without reviewing, reflecting on and revising what he or she has written, and proofreading is an extremely important part of this process.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Your Methods

Ensure understanding, reproducibility and replicability

What should you include in your methods section, and how much detail is appropriate?

Why Methods Matter

The methods section was once the most likely part of a paper to be unfairly abbreviated, overly summarized, or even relegated to hard-to-find sections of a publisher’s website. While some journals may responsibly include more detailed elements of methods in supplementary sections, the movement for increased reproducibility and rigor in science has reinstated the importance of the methods section. Methods are now viewed as a key element in establishing the credibility of the research being reported, alongside the open availability of data and results.

A clear methods section impacts editorial evaluation and readers’ understanding, and is also the backbone of transparency and replicability.

For example, the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology project set out in 2013 to replicate experiments from 50 high profile cancer papers, but revised their target to 18 papers once they understood how much methodological detail was not contained in the original papers.

What to include in your methods section

What you include in your methods sections depends on what field you are in and what experiments you are performing. However, the general principle in place at the majority of journals is summarized well by the guidelines at PLOS ONE : “The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. ” The emphases here are deliberate: the methods should enable readers to understand your paper, and replicate your study. However, there is no need to go into the level of detail that a lay-person would require—the focus is on the reader who is also trained in your field, with the suitable skills and knowledge to attempt a replication.

A constant principle of rigorous science

A methods section that enables other researchers to understand and replicate your results is a constant principle of rigorous, transparent, and Open Science. Aim to be thorough, even if a particular journal doesn’t require the same level of detail . Reproducibility is all of our responsibility. You cannot create any problems by exceeding a minimum standard of information. If a journal still has word-limits—either for the overall article or specific sections—and requires some methodological details to be in a supplemental section, that is OK as long as the extra details are searchable and findable .

Imagine replicating your own work, years in the future

As part of PLOS’ presentation on Reproducibility and Open Publishing (part of UCSF’s Reproducibility Series ) we recommend planning the level of detail in your methods section by imagining you are writing for your future self, replicating your own work. When you consider that you might be at a different institution, with different account logins, applications, resources, and access levels—you can help yourself imagine the level of specificity that you yourself would require to redo the exact experiment. Consider:

• Which details would you need to be reminded of? 
• Which cell line, or antibody, or software, or reagent did you use, and does it have a Research Resource ID (RRID) that you can cite?
• Which version of a questionnaire did you use in your survey? 
• Exactly which visual stimulus did you show participants, and is it publicly available? 
• What participants did you decide to exclude? 
• What process did you adjust, during your work? 

Tip: Be sure to capture any changes to your protocols

You yourself would want to know about any adjustments, if you ever replicate the work, so you can surmise that anyone else would want to as well. Even if a necessary adjustment you made was not ideal, transparency is the key to ensuring this is not regarded as an issue in the future. It is far better to transparently convey any non-optimal methods, or methodological constraints, than to conceal them, which could result in reproducibility or ethical issues downstream.

Visual aids for methods help when reading the whole paper

Consider whether a visual representation of your methods could be appropriate or aid understanding your process. A visual reference readers can easily return to, like a flow-diagram, decision-tree, or checklist, can help readers to better understand the complete article, not just the methods section.

Ethical Considerations

In addition to describing what you did, it is just as important to assure readers that you also followed all relevant ethical guidelines when conducting your research. While ethical standards and reporting guidelines are often presented in a separate section of a paper, ensure that your methods and protocols actually follow these guidelines. Read more about ethics .

Existing standards, checklists, guidelines, partners

While the level of detail contained in a methods section should be guided by the universal principles of rigorous science outlined above, various disciplines, fields, and projects have worked hard to design and develop consistent standards, guidelines, and tools to help with reporting all types of experiment. Below, you’ll find some of the key initiatives. Ensure you read the submission guidelines for the specific journal you are submitting to, in order to discover any further journal- or field-specific policies to follow, or initiatives/tools to utilize.

Tip: Keep your paper moving forward by providing the proper paperwork up front

Be sure to check the journal guidelines and provide the necessary documents with your manuscript submission. Collecting the necessary documentation can greatly slow the first round of peer review, or cause delays when you submit your revision.

Randomized Controlled Trials – CONSORT The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) project covers various initiatives intended to prevent the problems of  inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The primary initiative is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting randomized trials known as the CONSORT Statement . 

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) is an evidence-based minimum set of items focusing  on the reporting of  reviews evaluating randomized trials and other types of research.

Research using Animals – ARRIVE The Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments ( ARRIVE ) guidelines encourage maximizing the information reported in research using animals thereby minimizing unnecessary studies. (Original study and proposal , and updated guidelines , in PLOS Biology .) 

Laboratory Protocols Protocols.io has developed a platform specifically for the sharing and updating of laboratory protocols , which are assigned their own DOI and can be linked from methods sections of papers to enhance reproducibility. Contextualize your protocol and improve discovery with an accompanying Lab Protocol article in PLOS ONE .

Consistent reporting of Materials, Design, and Analysis – the MDAR checklist A cross-publisher group of editors and experts have developed, tested, and rolled out a checklist to help establish and harmonize reporting standards in the Life Sciences . The checklist , which is available for use by authors to compile their methods, and editors/reviewers to check methods, establishes a minimum set of requirements in transparent reporting and is adaptable to any discipline within the Life Sciences, by covering a breadth of potentially relevant methodological items and considerations. If you are in the Life Sciences and writing up your methods section, try working through the MDAR checklist and see whether it helps you include all relevant details into your methods, and whether it reminded you of anything you might have missed otherwise.

Summary Writing tips

The main challenge you may find when writing your methods is keeping it readable AND covering all the details needed for reproducibility and replicability. While this is difficult, do not compromise on rigorous standards for credibility!

• Keep in mind future replicability, alongside understanding and readability.
• Follow checklists, and field- and journal-specific guidelines.
• Consider a commitment to rigorous and transparent science a personal responsibility, and not just adhering to journal guidelines.
• Establish whether there are persistent identifiers for any research resources you use that can be specifically cited in your methods section.
• Deposit your laboratory protocols in Protocols.io, establishing a permanent link to them. You can update your protocols later if you improve on them, as can future scientists who follow your protocols.
• Consider visual aids like flow-diagrams, lists, to help with reading other sections of the paper.
• Be specific about all decisions made during the experiments that someone reproducing your work would need to know.

Don’t

• Summarize or abbreviate methods without giving full details in a discoverable supplemental section.
• Presume you will always be able to remember how you performed the experiments, or have access to private or institutional notebooks and resources.
• Attempt to hide constraints or non-optimal decisions you had to make–transparency is the key to ensuring the credibility of your research.
• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

How to Write the Methods Section of a Scientific Article

What Is the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

The Methods section of a research article includes an explanation of the procedures used to conduct the experiment. For authors of scientific research papers, the objective is to present their findings clearly and concisely and to provide enough information so that the experiment can be duplicated.

Research articles contain very specific sections, usually dictated by either the target journal or specific style guides. For example, in the social and behavioral sciences, the American Psychological Association (APA) style guide is used to gather information on how the manuscript should be arranged . As with most styles, APA’s objectives are to ensure that manuscripts are written with minimum distractions to the reader. Every research article should include a detailed Methods section after the Introduction.

Why is the Methods Section Important?

The Methods section (also referred to as “Materials and Methods”) is important because it provides the reader enough information to judge whether the study is valid and reproducible.

Structure of the Methods Section in a Research Paper

While designing a research study, authors typically decide on the key points that they’re trying to prove or the “ cause-and-effect relationship ” between objects of the study. Very simply, the study is designed to meet the objective. According to APA, a Methods section comprises of the following three subsections: participants, apparatus, and procedure.

How do You Write a Method Section in Biology?

In biological sciences, the Methods section might be more detailed, but the objectives are the same—to present the study clearly and concisely so that it is understandable and can be duplicated.

If animals (including human subjects) were used in the study, authors should ensure to include statements that they were treated according to the protocols outlined to ensure that treatment is as humane as possible.

• The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles developed by The World Medical Association to provide guidance to scientists and physicians in medical research involving human subjects.

Research conducted at an institution using human participants is overseen by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) with which it is affiliated. IRB is an administrative body whose purpose is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects during their participation in the study.

Literature Search

Literature searches are performed to gather as much information as relevant from previous studies. They are important for providing evidence on the topic and help validate the research. Most are accomplished using keywords or phrases to search relevant databases. For example, both MEDLINE and PubMed provide information on biomedical literature. Google Scholar, according to APA, is “one of the best sources available to an individual beginning a literature search.” APA also suggests using PsycINFO and refers to it as “the premier database for locating articles in psychological science and related literature.”

Authors must make sure to have a set of keywords (usually taken from the objective statement) to stay focused and to avoid having the search move far from the original objective. Authors will benefit by setting limiting parameters, such as date ranges, and avoiding getting pulled into the trap of using non-valid resources, such as social media, conversations with people in the same discipline, or similar non-valid sources, as references.

Related: Ready with your methods section and looking forward to manuscript submission ? Check these journal selection guidelines now!

What Should be Included in the Methods Section of a Research Paper?

One commonly misused term in research papers is “methodology.” Methodology refers to a branch of the Philosophy of Science which deals with scientific methods, not to the methods themselves, so authors should avoid using it. Here is the list of main subsections that should be included in the Methods section of a research paper ; authors might use subheadings more clearly to describe their research.

• Literature search : Authors should cite any sources that helped with their choice of methods. Authors should indicate timeframes of past studies and their particular parameters.
• Study participants : Authors should cite the source from where they received any non-human subjects. The number of animals used, the ages, sex, their initial conditions, and how they were housed and cared for, should be listed. In case of human subjects, authors should provide the characteristics, such as geographical location; their age ranges, sex, and medical history (if relevant); and the number of subjects. In case hospital records were used, authors should include the subjects’ basic health information and vital statistics at the beginning of the study. Authors should also state that written informed consent was provided by each subject.
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria : Authors should describe their inclusion and exclusion criteria, how they were determined, and how many subjects were eliminated.
• Group characteristics (could be combined with “Study participants”) : Authors should describe how the chosen group was divided into subgroups and their characteristics, including the control. Authors should also describe any specific equipment used, such as housing needs and feed (usually for animal studies). If patient records are reviewed and assessed, authors should mention whether the reviewers were blinded to them.
• Procedures : Authors should describe their study design. Any necessary preparations (e.g., tissue samples, drugs) and instruments must be explained. Authors should describe how the subjects were “ manipulated to answer the experimental question .” Timeframes should be included to ensure that the procedures are clear (e.g., “Rats were given XX drug for 14 d”). For animals sacrificed, the methods used and the protocols followed should be outlined.
• Statistical analyses: The type of data, how they were measured, and which statistical tests were performed, should be described. (Note: This is not the “results” section; any relevant tables and figures should be referenced later.) Specific software used must be cited.

What Should not be Included in Your Methods Section?

Common pitfalls can make the manuscript cumbersome to read or might make the readers question the validity of the research. The University of Southern California provides some guidelines .

• Background information that is not helpful must be avoided.
• Authors must avoid providing a lot of detail.
• Authors should focus more on how their method was used to meet their objective and less on mechanics .
• Any obstacles faced and how they were overcome should be described (often in your “Study Limitations”). This will help validate the results.

According to the University of Richmond , authors must avoid including extensive details or an exhaustive list of equipment that have been used as readers could quickly lose attention. These unnecessary details add nothing to validate the research and do not help the reader understand how the objective was satisfied. A well-thought-out Methods section is one of the most important parts of the manuscript. Authors must make a note to always prepare a draft that lists all parts, allow others to review it, and revise it to remove any superfluous information.

m so confused about ma research but now m okay so thank uh so mxh

Mil gracias por su ayuda.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Infographic
• Manuscripts & Grants
• Reporting Research
• Trending Now

Can AI Tools Prepare a Research Manuscript From Scratch? — A comprehensive guide

As technology continues to advance, the question of whether artificial intelligence (AI) tools can prepare…

Abstract Vs. Introduction — Do you know the difference?

Ross wants to publish his research. Feeling positive about his research outcomes, he begins to…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Demystifying Research Methodology With Field Experts

Choosing research methodology Research design and methodology Evidence-based research approach How RAxter can assist researchers

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

How to Choose Best Research Methodology for Your Study

Successful research conduction requires proper planning and execution. While there are multiple reasons and aspects…

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Draft the Acknowledgment Section of a Manuscript

Discussion Vs. Conclusion: Know the Difference Before Drafting Manuscripts

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

PublishingState.com

How to Write the Methodology for Your Journal Article Effectively

Table of contents, a sneak peek, differentiating between methodology and methods, the role of methodology in adding research credibility, how a well-written methodology facilitates peer review, examples of research philosophies and approaches, data collection methods, the significance of discussing your data analysis process, examples of commonly used data analysis techniques, acknowledge potential ethical issues, explain your approach to ethics, discuss data protection, consider cultural sensitivity, step 1: revisit your research questions and objectives, step 2: explain your overall approach and rationale, step 3: describe your research design, step 4: provide details on data collection and instruments, step 5: explain your sampling method, step 6: describe your data analysis procedures, step 7: address ethical considerations, step 8: write in a clear, concise manner, step 9: maintain logical flow and organization, step 10: proofread extensively, being too vague, neglecting to justify choices, inappropriate level of detail, inconsistent structure, ignoring limitations, using jargon, introduction.

This article guides you on how to write the methodology for your journal article effectively and efficiently. In academic publishing , the methodology section is one of the most critical parts of drafting an academic journal article.

You will learn about methodology, why it is vital for your research, and how to craft one that adequately conveys the rationale behind your study design, data collection, and analysis techniques. We will also discuss common pitfalls to avoid when drafting your methodology.

By the end, you will have a solid understanding of how to structure your methodology section perfectly. You can justify your chosen research philosophy, outline your data collection procedures, explain your analysis methods, and address relevant ethical concerns. The tips and examples will help you write a methodology that adds credibility to your work and facilitates future replication studies.

In the coming sections, we will start by clearly defining a methodology and explaining why it is crucial for your academic article. We’ll then provide guidance on identifying your research philosophy and approach, detailing your study design and data collection techniques, discussing your analysis methods, and addressing ethical considerations.

The post will also include a step-by-step walkthrough of how to structure and write your methodology section. You’ll get tips to maintain clarity, precision, and flow in your writing. We’ll end by highlighting common mistakes to avoid when drafting this crucial part of your journal article.

Understanding What a Methodology Is

The methodology section is one of the most important parts of a research paper or journal publishing . It details the procedures and techniques the researcher uses to structure the study and collect and analyze data. But what exactly is a methodology?

In simple terms, the methodology explains the methods used in the research. It provides a description of the approaches, tools, materials, and procedures employed by the researcher to carry out the study. The methodology section allows readers to evaluate a study’s validity and reliability critically.

Some key elements covered in a methodology include:

• Research philosophy ( positivism , interpretivism , etc.)
• Research approach (deductive, inductive, etc.)
• Research design (experimental, survey, case study, etc.)
• Sampling techniques
• Data collection methods (interviews, surveys, observations)
• Data analysis methods (statistical analysis, coding, etc.)

The methodology refers to the overall strategy and rationale for the research process. The methods are specific procedures and techniques for collecting and analyzing data. The methodology provides the reasons for using specific methods and not others in a study. It justifies the research methods.

While the methodology outlines the broad principles and reasoning, the methods section provides meticulous details and a step-by-step account of the techniques applied to gather and make sense of the data. The methods explain how the study was conducted, while the methodology explains why particular methods were used.

To summarize, the methodology describes the overall approach and underpinning research framework, while the methods section offers a detailed account of the practical steps and processes followed in the study.

Why is Methodology Crucial for Your Journal Article?

A sound methodology is the foundation of credible and impactful research. The methodology section demonstrates the validity of your study by detailing how you systematically conducted the research. Here are some key reasons why methodology holds great significance for your journal article:

The methodology provides a window into the research process, allowing readers to evaluate your work critically. A robust methodology indicates that you have carefully considered the research design, data collection, and analysis techniques.

This adds to the overall credibility of the study findings and conclusions. Detailing a logical and scientifically sound methodology reassures readers that you have undertaken a rigorous and unbiased investigation.

During peer review , reviewers scrutinize the methodology to determine the research’s validity, reliability, and reproducibility. A clear, comprehensive, and coherent methodology enables reviewers to assess the technical quality of your work effectively.

Sound methodology allows other researchers to replicate your study and verify the results independently. Replication bolsters the authenticity of your findings. A concise methodology section makes your academic work more amenable to critical peer evaluation and replication – two pillars of the scientific process.

In short, an articulate, well-structured methodology enhances your journal article’s overall cogency and scientific merit. Investing efforts into crafting this crucial section can go a long way in getting your research published and positively received by the academic community. The methodology demonstrates methodological rigor and allows readers to judge the soundness of your work.

Identifying your Research Philosophy and Approach

Defining your research philosophy and approach is crucial when drafting a journal article’s methodology section. Your research philosophy refers to your beliefs about the nature of knowledge and reality, guiding your research. On the other hand, your research approach deals with the overall strategy and plan of action underpinning your study.

Clarifying your philosophical assumptions and approach from the outset is vital for several reasons:

• It helps establish your research’s intent, angle, and perspective from the start.
• It allows readers to understand your worldview and theoretical positioning as a researcher.
• A clear philosophy provides justification for your chosen methods and study design.
• It demonstrates methodological rigor and self-awareness as a researcher.

Some common research philosophies include positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, constructivism, and post-positivism. Your choice depends on factors like your field of study, research aims, data collection methods, and preferred analysis techniques. When describing your philosophy, explain why it aligns with your research problem and goals.

Similarly, you need to identify and justify your overall research approach. There are three main approaches:

• Quantitative research – objective measures and statistical analysis, focusing on hypothesis testing
• Qualitative research – exploratory, focusing on meanings and experiences
• Mixed methods – combines quantitative and qualitative techniques as needed

Your research approach should logically follow your philosophical assumptions. For instance, a positivist philosophy typically lends itself to a quantitative approach. However, qualitative or mixed methods can also be suitable depending on the context.

The key is to state your chosen philosophy and approach upfront transparently. This provides a conceptual framework for readers to understand your methodology. Any deviations or mixed approaches should adequately justify and align with your research aims.

Here are some examples to illustrate how different research philosophies and approaches are typically described:

• A positivist philosophy with quantitative methods: “This study adopts a positivist philosophy and quantitative approach to test the hypothesis that…”
• An interpretivist philosophy with qualitative methods: “Aligned with an interpretivist philosophy, this study uses qualitative interviews to explore the subjective experiences of…”
• A pragmatist philosophy with mixed methods : “Guided by a pragmatist philosophy, this research employs a mixed methods approach, integrating quantitative surveys and qualitative case studies to…”

The author clearly states their philosophical stance and research approach in each example. This level of transparency is key in the methodology section. Readers can immediately grasp how the researcher’s worldview shapes their inquiry strategy.

In short, articulating your research philosophy and approach provides a conceptual anchor for your methodology. It also demonstrates methodological rigor and alignment between your research aims and techniques. Make sure to provide justification for your chosen philosophy and approach as well.

Detailing Your Research Design and Data Collection Methods

A clear and detailed description of your research design is crucial for a robust methodology section. Your research design refers to the overall strategy you chose to integrate the different components of the study in a coherent way to address your research problem effectively. It provides the blueprint for data collection, measurement, and analysis.

A well-articulated research design shows the logical sequence that connects the empirical data to the initial research questions and, ultimately, the conclusions drawn from the study.

When describing your research design, you need to provide sufficient information for readers to evaluate the appropriateness of your methods and the reliability and validity of your results. Key elements to mention are:

• Research design type (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, observational).
• Study setting.
• Population and sample.
• Variables, constructs, or phenomena under study.
• Any control or comparison groups, if applicable.

You should also justify why your chosen design aligns with your research aims and questions. For example, highlight why an experimental design may be preferred over an observational study to establish causality for your research problem.

In addition to the research design, you must elaborate on the techniques and procedures for collecting the required data. Data collection methods are broadly divided into:

• Primary methods: These involve first-hand data collection by the researcher using methods like interviews, surveys, observations, case studies, focus groups, etc.
• Secondary methods: These rely on already available data from sources like journals, census, organizational records, etc. Examples are literature/desk review, content/document analysis, etc.

For both primary and secondary data collection methods, discuss details like:

• Specific techniques (e.g., online survey, semi-structured interviews, etc.).
• Development and testing of data collection instruments (e.g., survey questionnaires).
• Study sample and sampling technique.
• Procedure adopted for data collection.
• Timeframe for data collection.

Providing this level of detail enables readers to judge the appropriateness of your data collection methods for the research problem and assess potential biases.

A detailed account of your research design and data collection techniques is vital for evaluating your research methodology’s overall rigor and quality.

Explaining Your Data Analysis Technique

The data analysis section is a crucial component of your methodology, demonstrating how you made sense of the data you collected. This section should provide a detailed account of your techniques to analyze your data and arrive at your findings.

Explaining your data analysis process allows readers to evaluate the appropriateness of your techniques. It also enables them to assess the reliability and validity of your results. Some key reasons for detailing your data analysis approach are:

• It demonstrates the logic behind your choice of analysis methods.
• It allows readers to judge the suitability of your analysis techniques for your specific research questions and data types.
• It gives credibility to your findings by providing a transparent account of how you analyzed the data.
• It enables other researchers to replicate your analysis process potentially.

Some commonly used qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods include:

• Thematic analysis – Identifying patterns and themes in qualitative data like interview transcripts.
• Content analysis – Systematically categorizing and analyzing qualitative data like documents or images.
• Discourse analysis – Studying language use and linguistic patterns in textual data.
• Statistical analysis – Techniques like regression, ANOVA, and t-tests for quantitative data.
• Data mining – Finding patterns and relationships in large quantitative datasets.

You should provide details like the tests performed, statistical software or tools used, variables examined, steps followed, etc., to allow readers to understand your analysis approach clearly.

Addressing Ethical Considerations

Ethically conducting research is a crucial component of developing a sound methodology. Here are some tips for effectively addressing ethical considerations in your methodology section:

Briefly acknowledge any potential ethical issues that may arise from your research, such as:

• Obtaining informed consent from participants.
• Protecting anonymity and confidentiality.
• Avoiding deception or distress to participants.
• Handling sensitive topics or vulnerable groups appropriately.

After identifying potential issues, explain how you addressed them ethically. For example:

• Note that participation was voluntary and that participants could withdraw at any time.
• Explain that anonymity was protected by using pseudonyms or codes instead of real names.
• Mention that approval was obtained from an ethics review board.

Discuss steps taken to protect data, such as:

• Storing data securely with password protection and encryption.
• Limiting access to identifiable data.
• Anonymizing data for analysis.
• Securely destroying data after a specified period.

If applicable, explain how you approached your research in a culturally sensitive manner, such as:

• Collaborating with local communities or leaders.
• Adapting methodology to cultural norms and values.
• Using culturally appropriate language and methods.

Addressing ethics builds trust with readers that you conducted your research responsibly. A brief but thoughtful discussion shows you are committed to integrity in your work.

Writing the Methodology: Step-by-Step Guide

Writing the methodology for your journal article is more manageable by breaking it down into clear steps. Here is a step-by-step guide on how to structure and write an effective methodology section:

The first step is to revisit the research questions and objectives you outlined at the start of your paper. Your methodology should clearly describe your specific methods to address these questions and meet the stated objectives.

Provide an overview of the approach you took in conducting your research. For example, did you use a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach? Explain why you selected this approach and how it aligns with your research questions.

Outline the specific type of research design you utilized, such as experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, qualitative case study, ethnography, etc. Discuss critical details like the study population, variables, data collection timeline, etc.

Thoroughly describe how you collected data for your study. Mention specific instruments, like surveys, interview questions, observation checklists, etc. Include details on their validity and reliability if applicable.

Discuss how you selected participants for your study. Describe the sampling method used (e.g., random, stratified, purposive) and your sample size. Provide key details on the study participants, like demographics.

Outline the specific qualitative or statistical methods you used to analyze the data. Mention any software used and provide details on the specific types of analyses performed in line with your research design.

Discuss how you addressed confidentiality, informed consent, and any other ethical issues that arose during data collection and analysis. Provide information on how you obtained IRB approval, if applicable.

Use straightforward, formal language when writing your methodology section. Avoid unnecessary jargon and clarify discipline-specific terminology. Be concise yet provide sufficient detail and explanation.

Structure your writing in a logical order that flows well. Group related ideas and methods together into paragraphs. Use transitions between paragraphs to guide the reader through the discussion.

Carefully proofread your methodology section several times once completed. Check for typos, grammar errors, inconsistencies, omitted details, and lack of clarity. Refine and revise as needed.

These steps can help you draft a clear, comprehensive, and convincing methodology section for your academic paper. Maintaining precision and coherence in your writing is key to effectively conveying the rigor of your research process.

Common Mistakes to Avoid While Writing Your Methodology

When drafting the methodology section for a journal article, it’s easy to make mistakes that can undermine the credibility of your research. Here are some of the most common pitfalls authors should avoid:

One major mistake is insufficient details about the research methods and procedures. Using vague language like “participants completed surveys” or “data was analyzed” leaves the reader guessing. Be specific when describing sampling techniques, data collection tools, analysis methods, etc.

Simply stating the methods you used is not enough – you need to justify why those particular choices were made. For example, explain why a certain sample size was deemed suitable or why a specific analysis technique was selected. Justifying methodological choices demonstrates thoughtful research design.

Some authors provide excessive trivial detail while skimming over more important aspects. Prioritize key information readers need to evaluate your methodology. For specialized details, you can direct readers to citations or supplementary materials.

The methodology section should follow a logical structure, starting with the research design, sampling strategy, data collection procedures, and data analysis techniques. Jumping around between topics makes the methods confusing to follow.

No research is perfect, so failing to acknowledge limitations comes across as biased. Briefly discuss any methodological weaknesses, biases, or assumptions made to show readers you have critically assessed your research.

Technical terms and acronyms should be defined since not all readers know them. Strike a balance between using appropriate methodology terminology and ensuring your writing is accessible.

Following these tips will help you avoid common pitfalls when drafting the methodology for your journal article. Remember to be detailed yet concise, justify all choices, use consistent structure, acknowledge limitations, and avoid excessive jargon.

We have concluded this comprehensive guide on writing the perfect methodology section for your academic journal article. Let’s do a quick recap of the key points we covered:

We started by understanding the methodology section – the part of your paper where you explain the logic and rationale behind your research design and methods. A good methodology provides credibility to your findings and allows others to replicate your study.

We then examined the importance of early identification of your research philosophy and approach. Defining your worldview and perspective lays the foundation for your choice of methods. Some common philosophies are positivism, interpretivism, critical research, etc.

Next, we discussed the significance of clearly detailing your research design and data collection techniques. Remember to mention primary research methods like surveys, interviews, experiments, and secondary desk research methods.

You must also explain your qualitative, quantitative, or mixed data analysis methods to show how you made sense of the collected data. The use of appropriate data analysis software should be highlighted.

We also touched upon the ethical dimensions of research. Do acknowledge any ethical considerations and how you addressed them.

The step-by-step guide focused on the best practices for structuring your methodology section. Maintain logical flow, use transitions, and ensure coherence in your writing.

Finally, we explored some common mistakes to avoid – like not justifying methods, unclear writing, and lack of ethical considerations.

As you draft the methodology for your next journal article submission, implement the steps and tips suggested in this guide. Pay attention to the logical flow and articulate your methods clearly. This will go a long way in getting your paper accepted.

Here are a few ways you can continue the conversation:

• Share your top tips for writing a clear, comprehensive methodology section. What strategies have worked for you? What common pitfalls have you encountered, and how did you avoid them?
• Let us know if you have any lingering questions about writing methodologies that weren’t fully addressed in this post. We’re happy to provide more clarity and recommendations.
• Tell us about when you received particularly helpful feedback on a journal article methodology you wrote, either from editors, reviewers, or colleagues. What did you learn from that experience?
• Have you ever had a paper rejected due to a poorly written methodology section? What could you have done differently?
• For seasoned academic writers: share your advice for novice scholars writing their first journal article methodology. What do you wish you had known when you started?

Thank you for reading this guide on how to write the methodology for your journal article. We hope you feel equipped with the knowledge and tools to write a clear, comprehensive, compelling methodology section that will set your academic work apart.

5 thoughts on “How to Write the Methodology for Your Journal Article Effectively”

• Pingback: Handling Author Disputes in Journal Publishing
• Pingback: The Vibrant History of Academic Publishing
• Pingback: Mastering Author Guidelines in Journal Publishing
• Pingback: Handling Manuscript Rejection by Academic Journals | PublishingState.com
• Pingback: How to Write a Research Article | PublishingState.com

Leave a comment Cancel reply

• Expert Journal of Finance
• Expert Journal of Economics
• Expert Journal of Marketing
• Expert Journal of Business and Management
• Send Your Article
• Google Plus

How to Write a Research Methodology for Your Academic Article

This article is part of an ongoing series on academic writing help of scholarly articles. Previous parts explored how to write an introduction for a research paper and a literature review outline and format .

The Methodology section portrays the reasoning for the application of certain techniques and methods in the context of the study.

For your academic article, when you describe and explain your chosen methods it is very important to correlate them to your research questions and/or hypotheses. The description of the methods used should include enough details so that the study can be replicated by other Researchers, or at least repeated in a similar situation or framework.

Every stage of your research needs to be explained and justified with clear information on why you chose those particular methods, and how they help you answer your research question or purpose.

As the Authors, in this section you get to explain the rationale of your article for other Researchers. You should focus on answering the following questions:

• How did you collect the data or how did you generate the data?
• Which research methods did you use?
• Why did you choose these methods and techniques?
• How did you use these methods for analyzing the research question or problem?

The responses to these questions should be clear and precise, and the answers should be written in past tense.

First off, let’s establish the differences between research methods and research methodology.

Research Methods and Research Methodology

As an Academic and Author of valuable research papers, it’s important not to confuse these two terms.

Research Methodology Definition

Research Methodology refers the discussion regarding the specific methods chosen and used in a research paper. This discussion also encompasses the theoretical concepts that further provide information about the methods selection and application.

In other words, you should highlight how these theoretical concepts are connected with these methods in a larger knowledge framework and explain their relevance in examining the purpose, problem and questions of your study. Thus, the discussion that forms your academic article’s research methodology also incorporates an extensive literature review about similar methods, used by other Authors to examine a certain research subject.

Research Method Definition

A Research Method represents the technical steps involved in conducting the research. Details about the methods focus on characterizing and defining them, but also explaining your chosen techniques, and providing a full account on the procedures used for selecting, collecting and analyzing the data.

Important Tips for a Good Methodology Section

The methodology section is very important for the credibility of your article and for a professional academic writing style.

Data Collection or Generation for Your Academic Article

Readers, academics and other researchers need to know how the information used in your academic article was collected. The research methods used for collecting or generating data will influence the discoveries and, by extension, how you will interpret them and explain their contribution to general knowledge.

The most basic methods for data collection are:

Secondary data

Secondary data are data that have been previously collected or gathered for other purposes than the aim of the academic article’s study. This type of data is already available, in different forms, from a variety of sources.

Secondary data collection could lead to Internal or External secondary data research.

Primary data

Primary data represent data originated for the specific purpose of the study, with its research questions. The methods vary on how Authors and Researchers conduct an experiment, survey or study, but, in general, it uses a particular scientific method.

Primary data collection could lead to Quantitative and Qualitative research.

Readers need to understand how the information was gathered or generated in a way that is consistent with research practices in a field of study . For instance, if you are using a multiple choice survey, the readers need to know which questionnaire items you have examined in your primary quantitative research. Similarly, if your academic article involves secondary data from FED or Eurostat it is important to mention the variables used in your study, their values, and their time-frame.

For primary research, that involve surveys, experiments or observations, for a valuable academic article, Authors should provide information about:

• Study participants or group participants,
• Inclusion or exclusion criteria

Selecting and Applying Research Methods

Establishing the main premises of methodology is pivotal for any research because a method or technique that is not reliable for a certain study context will lead to unreliable results, and the outcomes’ interpretation (and overall academic article) will not be valuable.

In most cases, there is a wide variety of methods and procedures that you can use to explore a research topic in your academic article. The methods section should fully explain the reasons for choosing a specific methodology or technique .

Also, it’s essential that you describe the specific research methods of data collection you are going to use , whether they are primary or secondary data collection.

For primary research methods, describe the surveys, interviews, observation methods, etc.

For secondary research methods, describe how the data was originally created, gathered and which institution created and published it.

Reasons for Choosing Specific Research Methods

For this aspect that characterizes a good research methodology, indicate how the research approach fits with the general study , considering the literature review outline and format , and the following sections.

The methods you choose should have a clear connection with the overall research approach and you need to explain the reasons for choosing the research techniques in your study, and how they help you towards understanding your study’s purpose.

Data Analysis Methods

This section should also focus on information on how you intend to analyze your results .

Describe how you plan and intend to achieve an accurate assessment of the hypotheses, relationships, patterns, trends, distributions associated with your data and research purpose.

The data type, how it was measured, and which statistical tests were conducted and performed, should be detailed and reported in an accurate manner.

For explaining the data analysis methods, you should aim to answer questions, such as:

• Will your research be based on statistical analysis?
• Will you use theoretical frameworks to help you (and your Readers) analyze a set of hypotheses or relationships?
• Which data analysis methods will you choose?
• Which other Authors or studies have used the same methods and should be cited in your academic article?

Issues to Avoid

There are certain aspects that you need to pay extra attention in relation to your research methodology section. The most common issues to avoid are:

• Irrelevant details and complicated background information that provides too information and does not provide accurate understanding for Readers
• Unnecessary description and explanations of basic or well-known procedures, for an academic audience who is already has a basin understanding of the study
• For unconventional research approaches, it is important to provide accurate details and explain why your innovative method contributes to general knowledge (save more details for your Discussion/ Conclusion section in which you can highlight your contributions)
• Research limitations and obstacles should be described in a separate section (Research Limitations)
• The methodology should include sources and references that support your choice of methods and procedures, compared to the literature review that provides a general outlook and framework for your study.

Which aspects are you generally focusing on when writing your academic article’s research methodology section?

You may also like, related policies and links, responsibilities of the publisher in the relationship with journal editors, general duties of publisher.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 6. The Methodology
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The methods section describes actions taken to investigate a research problem and the rationale for the application of specific procedures or techniques used to identify, select, process, and analyze information applied to understanding the problem, thereby, allowing the reader to critically evaluate a study’s overall validity and reliability. The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense.

Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004): 1229-1232.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you chose affects the results and, by extension, how you interpreted their significance in the discussion section of your paper.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and, as a consequence, undermines the value of your analysis of the findings.
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. The methodology section of your paper should clearly articulate the reasons why you have chosen a particular procedure or technique.
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a multiple choice questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The method must be appropriate to fulfilling the overall aims of the study. For example, you need to ensure that you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring. For any problems that do arise, you must describe the ways in which they were minimized or why these problems do not impact in any meaningful way your interpretation of the findings.
• In the social and behavioral sciences, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow other researchers to adopt or replicate your methodology. This information is particularly important when a new method has been developed or an innovative use of an existing method is utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article. Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Denscombe, Martyn. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects . 5th edition. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 2014; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The e mpirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences . This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for formulating hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation.
• The i nterpretative group of methods is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . Interpretive methods focus on analytically disclosing the meaning-making practices of human subjects [the why, how, or by what means people do what they do], while showing how those practices arrange so that it can be used to generate observable outcomes. Interpretive methods allow you to recognize your connection to the phenomena under investigation. However, the interpretative group requires careful examination of variables because it focuses more on subjective knowledge.

II.  Content

The introduction to your methodology section should begin by restating the research problem and underlying assumptions underpinning your study. This is followed by situating the methods you used to gather, analyze, and process information within the overall “tradition” of your field of study and within the particular research design you have chosen to study the problem. If the method you choose lies outside of the tradition of your field [i.e., your review of the literature demonstrates that the method is not commonly used], provide a justification for how your choice of methods specifically addresses the research problem in ways that have not been utilized in prior studies.

The remainder of your methodology section should describe the following:

• Decisions made in selecting the data you have analyzed or, in the case of qualitative research, the subjects and research setting you have examined,
• Tools and methods used to identify and collect information, and how you identified relevant variables,
• The ways in which you processed the data and the procedures you used to analyze that data, and
• The specific research tools or strategies that you utilized to study the underlying hypothesis and research questions.

In addition, an effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods for gathering data should have a clear connection to your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is not suitable to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom. Also be sure to explain how older data is still relevant to investigating the current research problem.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors? Describe how you plan to obtain an accurate assessment of relationships, patterns, trends, distributions, and possible contradictions found in the data.
• Provide background and a rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a justification for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of data being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate to addressing the research problem.
• Provide a justification for case study selection . A common method of analyzing research problems in the social sciences is to analyze specific cases. These can be a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis that are either examined as a singular topic of in-depth investigation or multiple topics of investigation studied for the purpose of comparing or contrasting findings. In either method, you should explain why a case or cases were chosen and how they specifically relate to the research problem.
• Describe potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :   Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. If necessary, consider using appendices for raw data.

ANOTHER NOTE : If you are conducting a qualitative analysis of a research problem , the methodology section generally requires a more elaborate description of the methods used as well as an explanation of the processes applied to gathering and analyzing of data than is generally required for studies using quantitative methods. Because you are the primary instrument for generating the data [e.g., through interviews or observations], the process for collecting that data has a significantly greater impact on producing the findings. Therefore, qualitative research requires a more detailed description of the methods used.

YET ANOTHER NOTE :   If your study involves interviews, observations, or other qualitative techniques involving human subjects , you may be required to obtain approval from the university's Office for the Protection of Research Subjects before beginning your research. This is not a common procedure for most undergraduate level student research assignments. However, i f your professor states you need approval, you must include a statement in your methods section that you received official endorsement and adequate informed consent from the office and that there was a clear assessment and minimization of risks to participants and to the university. This statement informs the reader that your study was conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. In some cases, the approval notice is included as an appendix to your paper.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but concise. Do not provide any background information that does not directly help the reader understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how the data was analyzed in relation to the research problem [note: analyzed, not interpreted! Save how you interpreted the findings for the discussion section]. With this in mind, the page length of your methods section will generally be less than any other section of your paper except the conclusion.

Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional methodological approach; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall process of discovery.

Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data, or, gaps will exist in existing data or archival materials. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose.

Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in and of itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. "How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section." Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Blair Lorrie. “Choosing a Methodology.” In Writing a Graduate Thesis or Dissertation , Teaching Writing Series. (Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2016), pp. 49-72; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Kallet, Richard H. “How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.” Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004):1229-1232; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Rudestam, Kjell Erik and Rae R. Newton. “The Method Chapter: Describing Your Research Plan.” In Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process . (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 2015), pp. 87-115; What is Interpretive Research. Institute of Public and International Affairs, University of Utah; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

To locate data and statistics, GO HERE .

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between the application of theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics . Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship. S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

Yet Another Writing Tip

Methods and the Methodology

Do not confuse the terms "methods" and "methodology." As Schneider notes, a method refers to the technical steps taken to do research . Descriptions of methods usually include defining and stating why you have chosen specific techniques to investigate a research problem, followed by an outline of the procedures you used to systematically select, gather, and process the data [remember to always save the interpretation of data for the discussion section of your paper].

The methodology refers to a discussion of the underlying reasoning why particular methods were used . This discussion includes describing the theoretical concepts that inform the choice of methods to be applied, placing the choice of methods within the more general nature of academic work, and reviewing its relevance to examining the research problem. The methodology section also includes a thorough review of the methods other scholars have used to study the topic.

Bryman, Alan. "Of Methods and Methodology." Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 3 (2008): 159-168; Schneider, Florian. “What's in a Methodology: The Difference between Method, Methodology, and Theory…and How to Get the Balance Right?” PoliticsEastAsia.com. Chinese Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands.

• << Previous: Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: May 9, 2024 11:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Journal Article: Methods

Criteria for success.

A successful Methods section:

• provides the reasons for choosing your methodology
• allows readers to confirm your findings through replication

Compare Authentic Annotated Examples for Methods and Results . Note the correspondence of subheadings between the two sections.

Identify Your Purpose

The purpose of a Methods section is to describe how the questions/knowledge gap posed in the Introduction were answered in the Results section. Not all readers will be interested in this information. For those who are, the Methods section has two purposes:

1. Allow readers to judge whether the results and conclusions of the study are valid.

The interpretation of your results depends on the methods you used to obtain them. A reader who is skeptical of your results will read your Methods section to see if they can be trusted. They’ll want to know that you chose the most appropriate methods and performed the necessary controls. Without this content, skeptical readers might think your data and any conclusions drawn from them are unreliable.

2. Allow readers to repeat the study.

For readers interested in replicating your study, the Methods section should provide enough information for them to obtain the same or similar results.

Analyze your audience

Typically, only readers in your field will want to replicate your study or have the knowledge to assess your methodology. More general audiences will read the Introduction and then proceed straight to the Results. You can therefore assume that people reading your Methods understand methodologies that are frequently used in your field. To gauge the level of detail necessary for a given method, you can look at articles previously published in your target journal.

If your paper is designed to appeal to experts in more than one field, you still need to write your Methods for a single set of experts. For example, say you applied a novel computational approach to gain new insight into a well-characterized biological system. Is your goal to get to show biologists the value of your computational tool or to show computational scientists how they can help study biology? In the former case, assume less computational expertise: provide more extensive explanations for how methods work and why they were chosen.

State the reasons for choosing your methodology

A reader looking to assess your methodology will read your Methods section to judge your experimental design. When describing your approach, place more emphasis on how you applied a method rather than on how you performed the method. For example, you don’t need to explain how to perform a western blot, but you might want to describe why a western blot is an appropriate approach for the task at hand (and, potentially, why you didn’t use another method).

Use subheadings to organize content

As recommended for your Results section , use subheadings within your Methods to group related experiments and establish a logical flow. Write your Results section first, and then follow the order of Results subheadings when writing your Methods. The parallel structure will make it easy for readers to locate corresponding information in the two sections.

Subheadings for Methods and Results may not exactly correspond. Sometimes you may need multiple Methods subheadings to explain one Results subheading. Other times, one Method subheading is enough to explain multiple Result subheadings.

Provide minimal essential detail

Provide only those details necessary for a reader to replicate the experiments presented in your study; anything more is extraneous. Remember that readers use Methods to help them assess the validity of your conclusions, so specify any methodological details that might cause someone to reach a different conclusion.

You can cite papers for standard methods, but any modifications or alterations should be clearly stated. When citing methods, cite the original paper in which a method was described instead of a paper that used the method. This helps avoid chains of citations that your reader must follow to find information about the method.

Avoid “we did…” or “the authors did…”

The Methods section should focus on the experiments, not the authors. Avoid phrasing your experiments as “We/The authors did ___”, even if it requires you to write in the passive voice.

“Samples were processed with standard DNA extraction protocols.”

“We processed the samples with standard DNA extraction protocols.”

This content was adapted from from an article originally created by the  MIT Biological Engineering Communication Lab .

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated example 1.

Zetsche et al. , "Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease...", Cell 2015. Compare to the annotated examples in the Results section. 2 MB

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Research Methodology – Types, Examples and writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Methodology

Definition:

Research Methodology refers to the systematic and scientific approach used to conduct research, investigate problems, and gather data and information for a specific purpose. It involves the techniques and procedures used to identify, collect , analyze , and interpret data to answer research questions or solve research problems . Moreover, They are philosophical and theoretical frameworks that guide the research process.

Structure of Research Methodology

Research methodology formats can vary depending on the specific requirements of the research project, but the following is a basic example of a structure for a research methodology section:

I. Introduction

• Provide an overview of the research problem and the need for a research methodology section
• Outline the main research questions and objectives

II. Research Design

• Explain the research design chosen and why it is appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Discuss any alternative research designs considered and why they were not chosen
• Describe the research setting and participants (if applicable)

III. Data Collection Methods

• Describe the methods used to collect data (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations)
• Explain how the data collection methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or instruments used for data collection

IV. Data Analysis Methods

• Describe the methods used to analyze the data (e.g., statistical analysis, content analysis )
• Explain how the data analysis methods were chosen and why they are appropriate for the research question(s) and objectives
• Detail any procedures or software used for data analysis

V. Ethical Considerations

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise from the research and how they were addressed
• Explain how informed consent was obtained (if applicable)
• Detail any measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity

VI. Limitations

• Identify any potential limitations of the research methodology and how they may impact the results and conclusions

VII. Conclusion

• Summarize the key aspects of the research methodology section
• Explain how the research methodology addresses the research question(s) and objectives

Research Methodology Types

Types of Research Methodology are as follows:

Quantitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of numerical data using statistical methods. This type of research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Qualitative Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection and analysis of non-numerical data such as words, images, and observations. This type of research is often used to explore complex phenomena, to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular topic, and to generate hypotheses.

Mixed-Methods Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that combines elements of both quantitative and qualitative research. This approach can be particularly useful for studies that aim to explore complex phenomena and to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular topic.

Case Study Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases. Case studies are often used in psychology, sociology, and anthropology to gain a detailed understanding of a particular individual or group.

Action Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves a collaborative process between researchers and practitioners to identify and solve real-world problems. Action research is often used in education, healthcare, and social work.

Experimental Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the manipulation of one or more independent variables to observe their effects on a dependent variable. Experimental research is often used to study cause-and-effect relationships and to make predictions.

Survey Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the collection of data from a sample of individuals using questionnaires or interviews. Survey research is often used to study attitudes, opinions, and behaviors.

Grounded Theory Research Methodology

This is a research methodology that involves the development of theories based on the data collected during the research process. Grounded theory is often used in sociology and anthropology to generate theories about social phenomena.

Research Methodology Example

An Example of Research Methodology could be the following:

Research Methodology for Investigating the Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Symptoms of Depression in Adults

Introduction:

The aim of this research is to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. To achieve this objective, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach.

Research Design:

The study will follow a pre-test and post-test design with two groups: an experimental group receiving CBT and a control group receiving no intervention. The study will also include a qualitative component, in which semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to explore their experiences of receiving CBT.

Participants:

Participants will be recruited from community mental health clinics in the local area. The sample will consist of 100 adults aged 18-65 years old who meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the experimental group or the control group.

Intervention :

The experimental group will receive 12 weekly sessions of CBT, each lasting 60 minutes. The intervention will be delivered by licensed mental health professionals who have been trained in CBT. The control group will receive no intervention during the study period.

Data Collection:

Quantitative data will be collected through the use of standardized measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Data will be collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with a subset of participants from the experimental group. The interviews will be conducted at the end of the intervention period, and will explore participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Data Analysis:

Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis to identify common themes and patterns in participants’ experiences of receiving CBT.

Ethical Considerations:

This study will comply with ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects. Participants will provide informed consent before participating in the study, and their privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. Any adverse events or reactions will be reported and managed appropriately.

Data Management:

All data collected will be kept confidential and stored securely using password-protected databases. Identifying information will be removed from qualitative data transcripts to ensure participants’ anonymity.

Limitations:

One potential limitation of this study is that it only focuses on one type of psychotherapy, CBT, and may not generalize to other types of therapy or interventions. Another limitation is that the study will only include participants from community mental health clinics, which may not be representative of the general population.

Conclusion:

This research aims to investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing symptoms of depression in adults. By using a randomized controlled trial and a mixed-methods approach, the study will provide valuable insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CBT and depression. The results of this study will have important implications for the development of effective treatments for depression in clinical settings.

How to Write Research Methodology

Writing a research methodology involves explaining the methods and techniques you used to conduct research, collect data, and analyze results. It’s an essential section of any research paper or thesis, as it helps readers understand the validity and reliability of your findings. Here are the steps to write a research methodology:

• Start by explaining your research question: Begin the methodology section by restating your research question and explaining why it’s important. This helps readers understand the purpose of your research and the rationale behind your methods.
• Describe your research design: Explain the overall approach you used to conduct research. This could be a qualitative or quantitative research design, experimental or non-experimental, case study or survey, etc. Discuss the advantages and limitations of the chosen design.
• Discuss your sample: Describe the participants or subjects you included in your study. Include details such as their demographics, sampling method, sample size, and any exclusion criteria used.
• Describe your data collection methods : Explain how you collected data from your participants. This could include surveys, interviews, observations, questionnaires, or experiments. Include details on how you obtained informed consent, how you administered the tools, and how you minimized the risk of bias.
• Explain your data analysis techniques: Describe the methods you used to analyze the data you collected. This could include statistical analysis, content analysis, thematic analysis, or discourse analysis. Explain how you dealt with missing data, outliers, and any other issues that arose during the analysis.
• Discuss the validity and reliability of your research : Explain how you ensured the validity and reliability of your study. This could include measures such as triangulation, member checking, peer review, or inter-coder reliability.
• Acknowledge any limitations of your research: Discuss any limitations of your study, including any potential threats to validity or generalizability. This helps readers understand the scope of your findings and how they might apply to other contexts.
• Provide a summary: End the methodology section by summarizing the methods and techniques you used to conduct your research. This provides a clear overview of your research methodology and helps readers understand the process you followed to arrive at your findings.

When to Write Research Methodology

Research methodology is typically written after the research proposal has been approved and before the actual research is conducted. It should be written prior to data collection and analysis, as it provides a clear roadmap for the research project.

The research methodology is an important section of any research paper or thesis, as it describes the methods and procedures that will be used to conduct the research. It should include details about the research design, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and any ethical considerations.

The methodology should be written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be based on established research practices and standards. It is important to provide enough detail so that the reader can understand how the research was conducted and evaluate the validity of the results.

Applications of Research Methodology

Here are some of the applications of research methodology:

• To identify the research problem: Research methodology is used to identify the research problem, which is the first step in conducting any research.
• To design the research: Research methodology helps in designing the research by selecting the appropriate research method, research design, and sampling technique.
• To collect data: Research methodology provides a systematic approach to collect data from primary and secondary sources.
• To analyze data: Research methodology helps in analyzing the collected data using various statistical and non-statistical techniques.
• To test hypotheses: Research methodology provides a framework for testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on the analysis of data.
• To generalize findings: Research methodology helps in generalizing the findings of the research to the target population.
• To develop theories : Research methodology is used to develop new theories and modify existing theories based on the findings of the research.
• To evaluate programs and policies : Research methodology is used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and policies by collecting data and analyzing it.
• To improve decision-making: Research methodology helps in making informed decisions by providing reliable and valid data.

Purpose of Research Methodology

Research methodology serves several important purposes, including:

• To guide the research process: Research methodology provides a systematic framework for conducting research. It helps researchers to plan their research, define their research questions, and select appropriate methods and techniques for collecting and analyzing data.
• To ensure research quality: Research methodology helps researchers to ensure that their research is rigorous, reliable, and valid. It provides guidelines for minimizing bias and error in data collection and analysis, and for ensuring that research findings are accurate and trustworthy.
• To replicate research: Research methodology provides a clear and detailed account of the research process, making it possible for other researchers to replicate the study and verify its findings.
• To advance knowledge: Research methodology enables researchers to generate new knowledge and to contribute to the body of knowledge in their field. It provides a means for testing hypotheses, exploring new ideas, and discovering new insights.
• To inform decision-making: Research methodology provides evidence-based information that can inform policy and decision-making in a variety of fields, including medicine, public health, education, and business.

Advantages of Research Methodology

Research methodology has several advantages that make it a valuable tool for conducting research in various fields. Here are some of the key advantages of research methodology:

• Systematic and structured approach : Research methodology provides a systematic and structured approach to conducting research, which ensures that the research is conducted in a rigorous and comprehensive manner.
• Objectivity : Research methodology aims to ensure objectivity in the research process, which means that the research findings are based on evidence and not influenced by personal bias or subjective opinions.
• Replicability : Research methodology ensures that research can be replicated by other researchers, which is essential for validating research findings and ensuring their accuracy.
• Reliability : Research methodology aims to ensure that the research findings are reliable, which means that they are consistent and can be depended upon.
• Validity : Research methodology ensures that the research findings are valid, which means that they accurately reflect the research question or hypothesis being tested.
• Efficiency : Research methodology provides a structured and efficient way of conducting research, which helps to save time and resources.
• Flexibility : Research methodology allows researchers to choose the most appropriate research methods and techniques based on the research question, data availability, and other relevant factors.
• Scope for innovation: Research methodology provides scope for innovation and creativity in designing research studies and developing new research techniques.

Research Methodology Vs Research Methods

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Organizing Academic Research Papers: 6. The Methodology

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• How to Manage Group Projects
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Acknowledgements

The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study’s validity is judged. The method section answers two main questions: 1) How was the data collected or generated? 2) How was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and written in the past tense.

Importance of a Good Methodology Section

You must explain how you obtained and analyzed your results for the following reasons:

• Readers need to know how the data was obtained because the method you choose affects the results and, by extension, how you likely interpreted those results.
• Methodology is crucial for any branch of scholarship because an unreliable method produces unreliable results and it misappropriates interpretations of findings .
• In most cases, there are a variety of different methods you can choose to investigate a research problem. Your methodology section of your paper should make clear the reasons why you chose a particular method or procedure .
• The reader wants to know that the data was collected or generated in a way that is consistent with accepted practice in the field of study. For example, if you are using a questionnaire, readers need to know that it offered your respondents a reasonable range of answers to choose from.
• The research method must be appropriate to the objectives of the study . For example, be sure you have a large enough sample size to be able to generalize and make recommendations based upon the findings.
• The methodology should discuss the problems that were anticipated and the steps you took to prevent them from occurring . For any problems that did arise, you must describe the ways in which their impact was minimized or why these problems do not affect the findings in any way that impacts your interpretation of the data.
• Often in social science research, it is useful for other researchers to adapt or replicate your methodology. Therefore, it is important to always provide sufficient information to allow others to use or replicate the study . This information is particularly important when a new method had been developed or an innovative use of an existing method has been utilized.

Bem, Daryl J. Writing the Empirical Journal Article . Psychology Writing Center. University of Washington; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I. Groups of Research Methods

There are two main groups of research methods in the social sciences:

• The empirical-analytical group approaches the study of social sciences in a similar manner that researchers study the natural sciences. This type of research focuses on objective knowledge, research questions that can be answered yes or no, and operational definitions of variables to be measured. The empirical-analytical group employs deductive reasoning that uses existing theory as a foundation for hypotheses that need to be tested. This approach is focused on explanation .
• The interpretative group is focused on understanding phenomenon in a comprehensive, holistic way . This research method allows you to recognize your connection to the subject under study. Because the interpretative group focuses more on subjective knowledge, it requires careful interpretation of variables.

II. Content

An effectively written methodology section should:

• Introduce the overall methodological approach for investigating your research problem . Is your study qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both (mixed method)? Are you going to take a special approach, such as action research, or a more neutral stance?
• Indicate how the approach fits the overall research design . Your methods should have a clear connection with your research problem. In other words, make sure that your methods will actually address the problem. One of the most common deficiencies found in research papers is that the proposed methodology is unsuited to achieving the stated objective of your paper.
• Describe the specific methods of data collection you are going to use , such as, surveys, interviews, questionnaires, observation, archival research. If you are analyzing existing data, such as a data set or archival documents, describe how it was originally created or gathered and by whom.
• Explain how you intend to analyze your results . Will you use statistical analysis? Will you use specific theoretical perspectives to help you analyze a text or explain observed behaviors?
• Provide background and rationale for methodologies that are unfamiliar for your readers . Very often in the social sciences, research problems and the methods for investigating them require more explanation/rationale than widely accepted rules governing the natural and physical sciences. Be clear and concise in your explanation.
• Provide a rationale for subject selection and sampling procedure . For instance, if you propose to conduct interviews, how do you intend to select the sample population? If you are analyzing texts, which texts have you chosen, and why? If you are using statistics, why is this set of statisics being used? If other data sources exist, explain why the data you chose is most appropriate.
• Address potential limitations . Are there any practical limitations that could affect your data collection? How will you attempt to control for potential confounding variables and errors? If your methodology may lead to problems you can anticipate, state this openly and show why pursuing this methodology outweighs the risk of these problems cropping up.

NOTE :  Once you have written all of the elements of the methods section, subsequent revisions should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and as logically as possibly. The description of how you prepared to study the research problem, how you gathered the data, and the protocol for analyzing the data should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic.

III.  Problems to Avoid

Irrelevant Detail The methodology section of your paper should be thorough but to the point. Don’t provide any background information that doesn’t directly help the reader to understand why a particular method was chosen, how the data was gathered or obtained, and how it was analyzed. Unnecessary Explanation of Basic Procedures Remember that you are not writing a how-to guide about a particular method. You should make the assumption that readers possess a basic understanding of how to investigate the research problem on their own and, therefore, you do not have to go into great detail about specific methodological procedures. The focus should be on how you applied a method , not on the mechanics of doing a method. NOTE: An exception to this rule is if you select an unconventional approach to doing the method; if this is the case, be sure to explain why this approach was chosen and how it enhances the overall research process. Problem Blindness It is almost a given that you will encounter problems when collecting or generating your data. Do not ignore these problems or pretend they did not occur. Often, documenting how you overcame obstacles can form an interesting part of the methodology. It demonstrates to the reader that you can provide a cogent rationale for the decisions you made to minimize the impact of any problems that arose. Literature Review Just as the literature review section of your paper provides an overview of sources you have examined while researching a particular topic, the methodology section should cite any sources that informed your choice and application of a particular method [i.e., the choice of a survey should include any citations to the works you used to help construct the survey].

It’s More than Sources of Information! A description of a research study's method should not be confused with a description of the sources of information. Such a list of sources is useful in itself, especially if it is accompanied by an explanation about the selection and use of the sources. The description of the project's methodology complements a list of sources in that it sets forth the organization and interpretation of information emanating from those sources.

Azevedo, L.F. et al. How to Write a Scientific Paper: Writing the Methods Section. Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia 17 (2011): 232-238; Butin, Dan W. The Education Dissertation A Guide for Practitioner Scholars . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010; Carter, Susan. Structuring Your Research Thesis . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; Lunenburg, Frederick C. Writing a Successful Thesis or Dissertation: Tips and Strategies for Students in the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. Methods Section . The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Writing the Experimental Report: Methods, Results, and Discussion . The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Methods and Materials . The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College.

Writing Tip

Statistical Designs and Tests? Do Not Fear Them!

Don't avoid using a quantitative approach to analyzing your research problem just because you fear the idea of applying statistical designs and tests. A qualitative approach, such as conducting interviews or content analysis of archival texts, can yield exciting new insights about a research problem, but it should not be undertaken simply because you have a disdain for running a simple regression. A well designed quantitative research study can often be accomplished in very clear and direct ways, whereas, a similar study of a qualitative nature usually requires considerable time to analyze large volumes of data and a tremendous burden to create new paths for analysis where previously no path associated with your research problem had existed.

Another Writing Tip

Knowing the Relationship Between Theories and Methods

There can be multiple meaning associated with the term "theories" and the term "methods" in social sciences research. A helpful way to delineate between them is to understand "theories" as representing different ways of characterizing the social world when you research it and "methods" as representing different ways of generating and analyzing data about that social world. Framed in this way, all empirical social sciences research involves theories and methods, whether they are stated explicitly or not. However, while theories and methods are often related, it is important that, as a researcher, you deliberately separate them in order to avoid your theories playing a disproportionate role in shaping what outcomes your chosen methods produce.

Introspectively engage in an ongoing dialectic between theories and methods to help enable you to use the outcomes from your methods to interrogate and develop new theories, or ways of framing conceptually the research problem. This is how scholarship grows and branches out into new intellectual territory.

Reynolds, R. Larry. Ways of Knowing. Alternative Microeconomics. Part 1, Chapter 3. Boise State University; The Theory-Method Relationship . S-Cool Revision. United Kingdom.

• << Previous: What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Next: Qualitative Methods >>
• Last Updated: Jul 18, 2023 11:58 AM
• URL: https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803
• QuickSearch
• Library Catalog
• Databases A-Z
• Publication Finder
• Course Reserves
• Citation Linker
• Digital Commons
• Our Website

Research Support

• Ask a Librarian
• Appointments
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Research Guides
• Databases by Subject
• Citation Help

Using the Library

• Reserve a Group Study Room
• Renew Books
• Honors Study Rooms
• Off-Campus Access
• Library Policies
• Library Technology

User Information

• Grad Students
• Online Students
• COVID-19 Updates
• Staff Directory
• News & Announcements
• Library Newsletter

My Accounts

• Interlibrary Loan
• Staff Site Login

FIND US ON  

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 June 2020

Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19

• Mahir Fidahic 1   na1 ,
• Danijela Nujic 2 , 3   na1 ,
• Renata Runjic 4 ,
• Marta Civljak 5 ,
• Filipa Markotic 6 ,
• Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric 7 &
• Livia Puljak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 5  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  20 , Article number:  161 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

21k Accesses

38 Citations

19 Altmetric

Metrics details

The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2.

We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010. Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020.

Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language. Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies ( N  = 88; 28%) and case reports ( N  = 86; 28%), analyzing patients’ characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099.

Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%).

Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China ( N  = 522; 63%). The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine ( N  = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine ( N  = 16; 3%).

Conclusions

Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modeling studies. The diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research. Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

Peer Review reports

On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) China Country Office was informed by the Chinese authorities of a series of pneumonia cases with unknown etiology (unknown cause) in Wuhan, Hubei, China, with clinical presentations that greatly resembled viral pneumonia. The Chinese authorities have isolated a causal agent on 7 January 2020, which was identified as a new type of coronavirus (novel coronavirus, nCoV) [ 1 ], titled “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes “coronavirus disease” (COVID-19) [ 2 ].

After emerging in China, the virus has spread rapidly throughout the world. On April 29, 2020, there were 3,162,438 confirmed cases throughout the world, with 219,287 deaths due to COVID-19 [ 3 ]; these numbers were escalating rapidly day by day.

The research community has responded rapidly to this new threat to humanity. On March 19, 2020, a simple search of PubMed, using the most common terms associated with the new virus and disease (coronavirus OR COVID-19 OR COVID 19 OR SARS-CoV-2), revealed that almost 2000 such articles were published since December 1, 2019. However, cursory browsing of those articles indicated that the majority of them appeared to be editorials, news, and opinions.

This is the third coronavirus epidemic in the third millennium, after severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012; it is highly pathogenic and requires urgent action in the research community [ 4 ]. Mapping research methodology of published original studies and registered clinical trials since the outbreak of pandemic will help researchers in getting a better overview of relevant studies published thus far and how fast the research community has responded to the new health threat immediately following the outbreak.

This study aimed to identify and classify published original research studies, preprint articles and registered clinical trials regarding the SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, until March/April 2020, the period which would correspond to the first months following the outbreak. We did not include an earlier period because the first official report about the new disease was submitted to the WHO on December 31, 2019 [ 1 ].

Protocol and registration

We defined protocol for this review prospectively and, for transparency, the protocol was published on Open Science Framework (OSF), URL: https://osf.io/dzvxc/ after the final draft of the protocol was endorsed by all co-authors, and before the commencement of any work.

Eligibility criteria

We included original studies of any study design that reported original data related to the virus SARS-CoV-2 and disease it causes, COVID-19, from December 1, 2019, onwards. We searched for records without language restrictions. We excluded articles reporting editorials, news, opinions, and other types of articles that did not report original research data. All excluded articles were tabulated, with references, and reasons for exclusion. We included articles posted on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv, as well as registered protocols of clinical trials about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

Information sources

To retrieve published original studies, we used publicly available WHO Database of publications on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [ 5 ]. The WHO has created this Database based on searches of bibliographic databases and hand-searching of tables of contents of relevant journals, as well as other scientific articles that came to their attention [ 5 ]. We conducted a separate initial search of MEDLINE using common keywords related to COVID-19 (coronavirus OR COVID-19 OR COVID 19 OR SARS-CoV-2), and we found a similar number of records as presented in the WHO database. We downloaded the full database in Excel and EndNote format on March 19, 2020.

We downloaded a list of preprint articles published in medRxiv and bioRxiv on April 3, 2020. The download was made via web site of the medRxiv ( https://www.medrxiv.org/ ), where there is a link to „COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv“. We accessed registered protocols of clinical trials from the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on April 7, 2020. For both preprint articles and clinical trial registrations we did not conduct any searches, as these information sources had pre-curated collections devoted to COVID-19, and they do not publish other types of content. Two authors screened preprint articles and clinical trial registrations to make sure they were about COVID-19.

Selection of sources of evidence

For published articles, two review authors screened all records (titles/abstracts) retrieved from the WHO Database. For each record, they noted their opinion on whether the study was eligible or not, and if not what was the reason (not related to the topic, not an original study report). We retrieved full texts of eligible or potentially eligible studies and two review authors independently screened them. For each full text, reviewers recorded their opinion about study eligibility, and reasons for exclusion (not related to the topic, not an original study report). Disagreements between reviewers in the second screening phase, evaluating full texts, were resolved via discussion or involvement of other authors. For preprint articles and registered clinical trials, one author verified their eligibility because they were downloaded from curated collections dedicated to COVID-19.

Data charting process

For published studies, one review author extracted the data and another author verified data extraction. Disagreements were resolved via discussion, or involvement of the third author if necessary. We extracted the following data, related to characteristics of articles and journals, in a standardized format for each eligible study: date of publication, journal, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for the year 2018, country of the authors’ affiliation (whole count method was used, whereas each country was counted once, regardless of the number of authors from an individual country), unit of analysis (humans, animal models, etc.) study aim, number of authors, self-reported study design, a thematic group in line with categories used by The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) [ 6 ], information about study funding, study sponsor name, study sponsor country. We classified all studies into three groups based on study design: observational, experimental, and evidence synthesis. For studies in languages other than English, we used Google Translate, as it has been shown that it is a viable, accurate tool for data extraction from non-English articles used in evidence syntheses [ 7 ]. For any uncertainties, we planned to contact native speakers of languages other than English. This was necessary only regarding an article in Persian.

For preprint articles, we extracted the following data: title, DOI, link to online article, abstract, number of authors, country of affiliation (using the whole country method), self-reported study design, a thematic group in line with categories used by EPPI-Centre [ 6 ], information about study funding, study sponsor name, study sponsor country.

For registered protocols, we analyzed the following data: clinical trial registry where the protocol was primarily registered, recruitment status, minimal and maximal age of participants, sex of eligible participants, self-reported study type, a location where the study will be conducted, and primary outcome.

Synthesis of results

We analyzed data using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages.

Articles with original data published in scholarly journals

Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. We have excluded 1585 articles for the following reasons: not original research ( N  = 1386), duplicate articles ( N  = 118), unrelated to the topic ( N  = 56), correction ( N  = 18), preprint server publication ( N  = 4), study protocol ( N  = 2), and retraction ( N  = 1). The list of analyzed and the list of excluded studies is available on OSF ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). The first article was published on January 21, 2020. The majority of articles were published in English ( N  = 401; 75%); a quarter was published in Chinese ( N  = 131; 24%), and one article was published in Persian.

The median number of authors was 7 (range: 1 to 63). Articles were published in 207 different journals. The highest number of articles was published in the Journal of Virology ( N  = 33; 6.1%) (Table  1 ). For 377 articles published in journals with a JIF, the median JIF was 5.099 (range: 0.364 to 70.670).

The median number of countries in the authors’ affiliations was 1 (range: 1 to 9). Authors from 48 countries authored the articles, the majority of affiliations were from China ( N  = 402; 75%), followed by the USA ( N  = 62; 12%) (Table 1 ).

In 312 (58%) journal articles, authors self-reported study design. The most common self-reported study designs were retrospective study ( N  = 88; 28%) and case report ( N  = 86; 28%) (Table 1 ). Our classification of articles in three major groups showed that there were 503 (94%) observational studies, 19 (4%) evidence syntheses of various types, and 11 (2%) experimental studies.

Among the 533 articles, 456 were in the EPPI-Centre living map of evidence; the majority were classified as case reports ( N  = 173; 38%) (Table 1 ). In 381 (71%) articles unit of analyses were humans; in the majority ( N  = 236; 62%) only adults were included. Declaration about study funding was reported in 324 (60%) of the journal articles; among those, there were 268 (83%) articles that reported that the study received funding. Sponsors were most commonly from China ( N  = 202; 75%) (Table 1 ).

Preprint articles

From the exported 1102 preprint articles we excluded 4 that were withdrawn and 10 that were about SARS and MERS; we included the remaining 1088 preprint articles in the analysis. The list of analyzed preprint articles is available on OSF ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). The majority was posted on medRxiv (Table  2 ). The first preprint article on COVID-19 was posted on bioRxiv on January 19, 2020; it reported a mathematical model of transmission of the novel virus [ 8 ], the first article was posted on medRxiv on January 24, 2020; it reported early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions regarding the novel virus [ 9 ].

The median number of authors was 7 (range: 1 to 178). The most common country in the authors’ affiliations was China (51%) (Table 2 ). In 494 (45%) preprint articles, authors self-reported study design. The most common self-reported study design was a modeling study (Table 2 ).

The most frequent thematic classification of the preprint articles was transmission/risk/prevalence (43%; Table 2 ). Study funding was reported in 681 (63%) of the preprint articles. The majority of funders were from China and the USA (Table 2 ).

Registered clinical trials

By April 7, 2020, there were 927 clinical trials indexed on WHO ICTRP. The list of analyzed registered trials is available on OSF ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). The first trial was indexed on January 27, 2020. The majority ( N  = 581; 63%) of trials were primarily registered on the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR), followed by ClinicalTrials.gov ( N  = 286; 30%). Few trials were primarily registered with other platforms (Table  3 ).

Recruitment status was available for 915 (99%) of registered protocols, and among them about half were either “not recruiting” or “recruiting” (Table 3 ). None of the trials retrieved from WHO ICTRP were labeled as “withdrawn” in the recruitment status. However, 38 (4%) of protocols were labeled as “Cancelled” in the name of the study; all these protocols were indexed primarily in ChiCTR.

In 744 trials, the minimal age of participants was specified. In the majority, the minimal age of participants was 18 years ( N  = 532; 72%) (Table 3 ). In 663 trials, information about the maximum age of participants was provided. In about a third of them ( N  = 197; 30%), it was specified that there was no upper age limit (Table 3 ). In 921 protocols there was information about the inclusion of participants based on sex; the majority ( N  = 892; 97%) reported they will include both men and women (Table 3 ).

The majority of registered trials were described as interventional ( N  = 535; 58%), followed by descriptor “observational” ( N  = 322; 35%) (Table 3 ). Among registered “trials”, there were even 7 that were described as “basic science” (Table 3 ).

The median number of planned study participants was 140 (range above zero: 1 to 15,000,000). For eight protocols, the planned number of participants in the WHO ICTRP data was zero; we checked web sites of all those protocols and found that five of them were from ClinicalTrials.gov where they were labeled as withdrawn, the remaining three were from ChiCTR, whereas one had information about the number of patients in the wrong field, but the remaining two did not have any explanation for zero number of patients.

Five protocols did not have any information about the number of participants; two were canceled protocols from ChiCTR, two were protocols labeled as “Expanded access status” in ClinicalTrials.gov , and we were unable to verify the fifth because the web link was not functional. In interventional studies, the median number of planned participants was 108 (range from 1 to 55,000), while in the observational median was 200 (range from 8 to 15,000,000). Three protocols reported that the planned number of participants was higher than one million.

In 825 registrations, the location, where the trial will be conducted, was reported. Only 20 (2.4%) reported that the trial will be conducted in more than one country. Most of the trials for which it was reported they will be conducted in a single location were located in China ( N  = 522; 63%), followed by the United States ( N  = 33; 4%) (Table 3 ).

In 535 trial protocols described as interventional, 532 (99%) provided information about the primary outcome. Most of the protocols ( N  = 260; 49%) had multiple primary outcomes that were not described as composite. In studies with a single or composite primary outcome ( N  = 272), highly heterogeneous primary outcomes were used (details about registered trials are available on OSF; https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). Few outcomes were used more commonly. The most commonly used outcome was time to recovery, used in 40 (15%) protocols, and phrased differently such as “time to clinical recovery”, “time to clinical improvement”, “time to disease recovery”, “time to remission”, “clinical recovery time”, etc. The second most common outcome was mortality, found in 23 (8.4%) protocols with a single or composite primary outcome, described variously as mortality, all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, or mortality at certain time points (28 days, 30 days, 60 days).

In registered trials of interventions, various heterogeneous interventions were tested; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine ( N  = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine ( N  = 16; 3%) (Table 3 ).

The research community has responded swiftly to COVID-19 in terms of scholarly dissemination output. The earliest date of onset of COVID-19 symptoms was reported as December 1, 2020 [ 10 ], and December 8, 2019 [ 11 ]. Our study shows that within about 3 months since the earliest reported date of onset of symptoms, more than two thousand articles were published in scholarly journals, a quarter of which had original data. Within 4 months from the public announcement [ 11 ] about the new disease, 1100 preprint articles were published and almost 1000 clinical trials registered.

The majority of studies came from China, which is understandable, as the disease originated there. Thus, Chinese scientists had a head start in exploring the disease. The majority of the first studies with original data, that were published in scholarly journals, had observational study design, which is understandable, as interventional studies usually take more time to be completed. However, the research community has responded rapidly with designing and registering clinical trials on COVID-19.

Even though the majority of journal articles with original data were published in English, a quarter was published in the Chinese language; this is concerning because those manuscripts may likely have valuable data, but they will be difficult to read and access by an audience that does not speak Chinese. Furthermore, this may prove challenging for conducting evidence syntheses; if the authors conducting systematic reviews and similar studies are unable to access or translate studies published in Chinese, those studies may not be included in evidence syntheses, thus contributing to biased evidence syntheses. Some authors of evidence syntheses deliberately upfront exclude articles published in languages other than English [ 12 ]; our results indicate that this may not be advisable in the evidence syntheses about COVID-19.

The median JIF of published articles was 5.099, which is rather high; it indicates that early articles were published in many high-impact journals, even if they described case reports, or case series, because of the novelty of the disease. It is likely that those journals were also able to accommodate submissions about COVID-19 quickly and organize rapid peer-review, and that those were journals with short turnaround times; journals with professional staff would be in a better position to adapt quickly to publishing novel topic of interest, compared to journals depending on volunteer staff.

While the majority of early articles about COVID-19 in scholarly journals were observational, mostly case reports, the predominant type of early articles about COVID-19 articles published on preprint servers included modeling studies. This might be early view of studies that will be soon published in peer-reviewed journals, but it remains to be seen how many of those preprint articles will actually pass the scrutiny of peer-review. It is possible that the massive production of modeling studies is leading to difficulties with publishing them, and that authors post those studies on a preprint server, to make their work publicly available. A large number of articles on preprint servers that we analyzed could be due to calls for authors to make their work publicly available in preprint servers along with submitting articles to peer-reviewed scholarly journals; there were even suggestions that submission to a preprint should be the default for all submissions [ 13 ].

The majority of registered trials we analyzed were registered in the Chinese registry of clinical trials, which is contrary to the report that ClinicalTrials.gov contains most of the global trial registrations [ 14 ], also, the overwhelming majority of registered trials we analyzed were conducted in China.

Although the aim of this study was not an in-depth analysis of outcomes and interventions that were used in registered trials about COVID-19, our analysis of those trials indicates both the novelty of the disease as well as methodological shortcomings. For example, the majority of registered trials of interventions specified more than one primary outcome; a clinical trial should have one primary outcome, or a combination of co-primary outcomes, but not multiple primary outcomes because primary outcomes are the basis for a sample size estimation. Primary outcomes and outcome measures were very different. Outcomes used in these trials should be used for informing the development of a core outcome set (COS) for COVID-19. It is possible that trialists used multiple primary outcomes that were treated as exploratory due to the early phase of the pandemic.

Various initiatives were already set up to start defining a COS for COVID-19. At least one article about COS-COVID has already been published [ 15 ], and multiple initiatives for developing COS for COVID-19 were registered on the web site of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative [ 16 ].

Many trials mentioned “standard therapy” or “conventional therapy”, and it would be interesting to further investigate what is considered a standard or conventional therapy for a completely new disease with no approved interventions by regulatory agencies. Furthermore, more than 10% of analyzed registered intervention trials were testing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, therapies that have been suggested as effective for COVID-19, and that have raised controversies [ 17 ].

Accumulation of evidence on COVID-19 is not without challenges. There are particular methodological challenges related to analyzing COVID-19 data during the pandemic [ 18 ]. A major challenge is also timely evidence synthesis of the rapidly accumulating data and methodological sacrifices that are being made along the way. Multiple evidence synthesis organizations are now offering evidence collections, investing duplicate effort into similar activities [ 19 ]. Overview of systematic reviews published until March 24 indicated that the majority of systematic reviews on COVID-19 available by that date were of critically low methodological quality [ 20 ]. Hopefully, research collaborations will be set up to reduce the multiplication of effort in terms of synthesizing and appraising COVID-19 evidence [ 19 ].

Early initiatives are evolving and improving along the way. We used WHO collection of evidence on COVID-19, and among the excluded studies there were 4 that were not published in scholarly journals; instead, they were published on a preprint server chemRxiv. Similarly, we have used classification of EPPI-Centre for categorizing analyzed articles into thematic areas; along the way we noticed that the number of articles in their collection had decreased, indicating that they are likely better in curating their content in the living map of evidence [ 6 ].

In future studies, it would be worthwhile to continue exploring the growth and characteristics of further studies regarding COVID-19; to analyze how many of the preprint articles will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and how many registered trials will be completed. The resolution of the COVID-19 pandemic is difficult to predict, and this may hinder plans for clinical trials. For countries that may be very successful in their lockdown and quarantine efforts, reduction of the number of infected and diseased patients may prevent the completion of registered clinical trials. Thus, it would be interesting to monitor how many of the registered trials will be terminated prematurely, or will not even begin.

However, in comparison to the past coronavirus epidemics (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV), the scientific community appears to be much more involved. We were unable to find bibliometric studies comparable to ours about the volume of research considering SARS and MERS, but the simple PubMed search reveals that researchers were much less productive even in the first year after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV first emerged. Namely, the number of articles from November 1, 2002, to November 1, 2003, and from April 1, 2012, to April 1, 2013, was 611 and 561, respectively.

A limitation of our study is a different search date for the three sources of information we analyzed. However, these sources have major differences in the export functionalities and amount/type of data they provide, and that need to be screened or analyzed. Our analysis of articles published in journal articles took longer time compared to the analysis of preprint articles and registered trials because we needed to conduct screening and analysis about whether those articles contained original data, a quarter of those articles were published in Chinese, and many of those articles were difficult to retrieve from Chinese journals. We are aware that with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, research output is fast increasing, but we aimed to analyze early research output, published between 3 and 4 months from the emergence of the new disease.

Furthermore, we did not analyse whether perhaps multiple publications referred to the same dataset. Also, for the translation of non-English articles, we used Google Translate, as it has been shown in 2019 that this tool can be trusted for data extraction in evidence synthesis [ 7 ]. One Persian article was additionally clarified through consultation with a native speaker; other languages that are not English were easily translated using Google Translate.

Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modelling studies. Many clinical trials about COVID-19 were registered, but it remains to be seen whether they will be completed due to unpredictable development of the pandemic and changes in the number of infected individuals. Diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research. Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

Availability of data and materials

Raw data collected and analyzed within this study are publicly available on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ).

Abbreviations

Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials

Journal impact factor

Open science framework

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

World health organization

World health organization international clinical trials registry platform

Coronavirus disease 2019

World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus - China. URL: https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ . Accessed 18 June 2020.

World Health Organization. Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it. URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease- (covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it. Accessed 18 June 2020.

Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. URL: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ . Accessed 18 June 2020.

Civljak R, Markotic A, Kuzman I. The third coronavirus epidemic in the third millennium: what's next? Croat Med J. 2020;61(1):1–4.

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Database of publications on coronavirus disease (COVID-19). URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov . Accessed 18 June 2020.

EPPI Centre. COVID-19: a living systematic map of the evidence. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Projects/DepartmentofHealthandSocialCare/Publishedreviews/COVID-19Livingsystematicmapoftheevidence/tabid/3765/Default.aspx . Accessed 18 June 2020.

Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, Choi A, Fournier JP, Geier AK, Jacquerioz F, Kogan D, Scholcoff C, Sun R. The accuracy of Google translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(9):677–9.

Chen TF, Rui J, Weng Q, Zhao Z, Cui J, Yin L: A mathematical model for simulating the transmission of Wuhan novel Coronavirus. bioRxiv 2020.01.19.911669; doi: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.19.911669 . 2020.

Read JM, Bridgen JRE, Cummings DAT, Ho A, Jewell CP: Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions. medRxiv 2020.01.23.20018549; doi: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549 . 2020.

Wu YC, Chen CS, Chan YJ. The outbreak of COVID-19: an overview. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA. 2020;83(3):217–20.

World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus - China. January 12, 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ .

Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii ix-xi, 1-193.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens TE, Weigel D. Publishing in the time of COVID-19. Elife. 2020;9.

Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Rajakannan T. Update on trial registration 11 years after the ICMJE policy was established. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):383–91.

Jin X, Pang B, Zhang J, Liu Q, Yang Z, Feng J, Liu X, Zhang L, Wang B, Huang Y, et al. Core outcome set for clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COS-COVID). Engineering (Beijing). 2020.

COMET. Core outcome set developers’ response to COVID-19 (15th April 2020). Available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1538 .

Retraction Watch. Elsevier investigating hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 paper. Available at: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/12/elsevier-investigating-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-paper/ . Accessed 18 June 2020.

Wolkewitz M, Puljak L. Methodological challenges of analysing COVID-19 data during the pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):81.

Ruano J, Gomez F, Pieper D, Puljak L. What evidence-based medicine researchers can do to help clinicians fighting COVID-2019? J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.015 .

Borges do Nascimento IJ, O'Mathuna DP, von Groote TC, Abdulazeem HM, Weerasekara I, Marusic A, Puljak L, Tassoni Civile V, Zakarija-Grkovic I, Poklepovic Pericic T et al: coronavirus disease (covid-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews. medRxiv 2020.04.16.20068213; doi: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20068213 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Antonia Jelicic Kadic for her help with data extraction for articles published in scholarly journals.

No extramural funding.

Author information

Mahir Fidahic and Danijela Nujic contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Medicine, University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mahir Fidahic

Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Osijek, Croatia

Danijela Nujic

Department of Public Health, Humanities and Social Sciences in Biomedicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health, Osijek, Croatia

University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Renata Runjic

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Marta Civljak & Livia Puljak

Croatian Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices, Zagreb, Croatia

Filipa Markotic

Department of Epidemiology, Croatian National Institute of Public Health, Zagreb, Croatia

Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: LP. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation: MF, DN, RR, MC, FM, ZLM, LP. Writing of the manuscript and revising the manuscript for intellectual content: MF, DN, RR, MC, FM, ZLM, LP. Final approval of the manuscript: MF, DN, RR, MC, FM, ZLM, LP.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable. This study did not involve human participants. We analyzed publicly available information from scholarly journals and public web sites with preprint articles and registered clinical trials.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Livia Puljak is Section Editor of the BMC Medical Research Methodology. Other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fidahic, M., Nujic, D., Runjic, R. et al. Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2

Download citation

Received : 01 May 2020

Accepted : 10 June 2020

Published : 22 June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Original research
• Clinical trial

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Uterine leiomyoma causes an increase in systolic blood pressure: a two-sample mendelian randomization study.

• 1 Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China
• 2 The First Clinical College, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China
• 3 College of Acupuncture, Moxibustion and Tuina, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China
• 4 Shandong Provincial Traditional Chinese Medicine Data Center Management Office, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China
• 5 Medical Affairs Office, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China
• 6 Disease Prevention Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China

Objectives: Hypertension and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are common diseases in women at different stages, which affect women’s physical and mental health, and the impact of the latter on the offspring cannot not be ignored. Observational studies have investigated the correlation between uterine leiomyoma (UL) and the above conditions, but the relationship remains unclear. In this study, we employed two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to assess the association between UL and hypertension, HDP, as well as blood pressure.

Methods: We collected genetic association data of UL (35,474 cases), hypertension (129,909 cases), HDP (gestational hypertension with 8,502 cases, pre-eclampsia with 6,663 cases and eclampsia with 452cases), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (both 757,601 participants) from published available genome-wide association studies (GWAS). The single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with UL phenotype were used as instrumental variables, and hypertension, three sub-types of HDP, SBP and DBP were used as outcomes. The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method was employed as the primary method of causal inference. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test, and sensitivity analyses were conducted using MR-Egger regression and MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) tests to evaluate the pleiotropy of instrumental variables. PhenoScanner search was used to remove confounding SNP. Robustness and reliability of the results were assessed using methods such as the weighted median and weighted mode.

Results: The IVW analysis revealed a positive correlation between genetically predicted UL and SBP [odds ratio (OR)= 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.24~2.25, P = 0.0007], and no statistical association was found between UL and hypertension, HDP, or DBP. The MR-Egger regression suggested that the above causal relationships were not affected by horizontal pleiotropy. The weighted median method and weighted model produced similar results to the IVW.

Conclusion: Based on large-scale population GWAS data, our MR analysis suggested a causal relationship between UL and SBP. Therefore, women with UL, especially pregnant women, should pay attention to monitoring their blood pressure levels. For patients with hypertension who already have UL, interventions for UL may serve as potential therapeutic methods for managing blood pressure.

Introduction

Hypertension is a common chronic disease. It is estimated that the number of global adults with hypertension is approaching 1 billion in 2000, and is projected to rise to 1.56 billion by 2025 ( 1 ), seriously affects people’s physical and mental health. Hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP) has a high prevalence globally, affecting 3% to 5% of pregnant women worldwide. Nearly one-third of hospitalized women die from this disease, making it the leading cause of maternal mortality ( 2 , 3 ). Chronic hypertension increases the incidence of pregnancy-related diseases and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth, and stillbirth ( 4 , 5 ). Uterine leiomyoma (UL) is a common benign tumor in women of childbearing age, and it is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery and placental abruption ( 6 , 7 ). The prevalence of UL is difficult to accurately estimate, and some patients are severely underestimated due to clinical asymptomatic status. Statistically, the prevalence of UL ranges from 4.5% and 68.6% in different countries ( 8 ).

Over the years, many studies have investigated the relationship between UL and cardiovascular diseases ( 9 – 15 ), but the conclusions of the studies have not yet been unified. For example, Chen et al. ( 9 ) conducted a cross-sectional study and meta-analysis involving 8,401 patients, showing a significant correlation between UL and hypertension. In contrast, the Northern Finland Birth Cohort study of 3,635 participants analyzed the situation from birth to 46 years and found no association between UL and hypertension ( 14 ). Additionally, hormonal changes often occur during pregnancy, and estrogen and progesterone often play a key role in the development of UL ( 16 ). A study in the United States showed that UL is relatively common during pregnancy, with significant differences in prevalence among different ethnic groups ( 17 ). It is worth noting that a recent study found that UL in early pregnancy may increase the risk of HDP ( 18 ). Due to inconsistent results from observational studies and the limitations in causal inference that exist in traditional observational studies, such as confounding factors and reverse causality, it is necessary to further investigate the relationship between UL and hypertension and HDP.

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a research method in genetic epidemiology that evaluates the causal relationship between exposure and outcome with the help of genetic variants, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are used as instrumental variables. Since genes are randomly allocated at the time of conception and are not affected by external environment or social factors, MR can avoid the confounding effects and reverse causality that exist in the observational studies, making it a relatively precise epidemiological method ( 19 , 20 ). Genome-wide association study (GWAS) is a method used to detect gene variations associated with complex human diseases or traits, and its objective is to reveal the impact of genetic variations on the risk of complex diseases, thereby providing new clues and strategies for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment ( 21 ). In this study, we explored the relationships between UL and hypertension, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and eclampsia using a two-sample MR study through GWAS summary data, and further investigated the association between UL and systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP).

Materials and methods

Data sources.

The genetic instruments for UL were obtained from the published GWAS meta-analysis of UL in 2019 ( 22 ), which is publicly available. The GWAS meta-analysis included the Women’s Genome Health Study, Northern Finnish Birth Cohort, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, UK Biobank (UKBB), and the cohort studies from 23andMe. The study population included 35,474 cases and 267,505 controls, and all individuals were of European descent.

The genetic data for hypertension were obtained from the published GWAS of age-related diseases in 2021 ( 23 ), which extracted information from UKBB and contained 129,909 hypertension cases and 354,689 controls. There exist some overlap between the UL dataset and the hypertension dataset, accounting for up to 41.80% of the samples. However, the calculated probability of type I error due to this overlap was 0.05, with potential bias less than 1%, which can be considered negligible.

The genetic data for HDP were obtained from the FinnGen R9 biobank published in May 2023. We chose three sub-types: gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia. The study population was all of European ancestry.

The genetic data for SBP and DBP were selected from the International Blood Pressure Consortium and UKBB with a total of 757,601 participants of European ancestry ( 24 ) ( Table 1 ). Similarly, there was some overlap between the exposure dataset and the current dataset (26.74% of the samples), but the potential bias due to this overlap was calculated to be negligible, less than 1%.

Table 1 Sample sources in MR studies.

Study design

We tested the causal relationship between the exposure (UL) and each outcome (hypertension, the three sub-types of HDP, SBP, and DBP) using MR analysis. To make reasonable interpretations of MR analysis, three core assumptions must be satisfied ( 25 ). Firstly: Association - The genetic variations are strongly associated with exposure. Secondly: Independence - The genetic variations are independent of the confounders that affect the association between exposure and outcome. Thirdly: Exclusion - The genetic variations only affect the outcome through exposure ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of MR analysis. SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

Selecting methods for instrumental variables

Genetic variations, SNPs, were used as instrumental variables, which were extracted from relevant GWAS ( Table 1 ). The selected instrumental variables needed to satisfy the following conditions: (1) P < 5×10 −8 , SNPs were significantly correlated with UL at the genome-wide level; (2) R 2 = 0.001, genetic distance=10,000kb, remove linkage disequilibrium; (3) SNPs were not significantly associated with the outcome, setting P = 5×10 −5 ; (4) SNPs did not have palindromic structures; (5) F >10, SNPs with an F -statistic less than 10 were excluded to avoid bias brought by weak instrumental variables. Weak instrumental variables are associated with exposure but have low explanatory capacity of exposure, providing little statistical power to test the hypothesis, which may lead to inaccurate estimation of causal effects and increased type I error probability ( 26 ). The strength of instrumental variables can be quantitatively evaluated using the F -statistic. The F -statistic for individual SNPs is calculated using the formula: F = β 2 / se 2 ( 27 ). According to traditional experience, F > 10 is less affected by the bias caused by weak instrumental variables ( 28 ).

Statistical analysis

Using the Steiger Test to detect the presence of reverse causation for instrumental variables ( 29 ). The inverse-variance weighting (IVW) method is used as the main method for causal inference. This method assumes that all SNPs are valid and exist no pleiotropy, providing a well statistical power, but when SNPs have pleiotropy, the results may be biased ( 30 , 31 ). Cochran' s Q test is used to assess heterogeneity among selected SNPs. The Q statistic is a weighted sum of squared deviations standardized by study variance. P <0.05 suggests heterogeneity, and a random effects model is used to assess causal associations, otherwise a fixed effects model is used ( 32 ). Because of the impact of pleiotropy on estimated association effects, MR-Egger regression is used to test for pleiotropy. If the intercept of the MR-Egger regression model is not zero ( P <0.05), it indicates the presence of gene pleiotropy ( 33 ). The robustness of the results is analyzed using MR-Egger method, weighted median method and weighted mode. The MR-Egger method is mainly used for MR causal inference when there is potential pleiotropy ( 33 ). The weighted median method requires that at least 50% of the weights come from valid instrumental variables. It is the best choice when there is heterogeneity but no pleiotropy ( 34 ). The weighted model identifies multiple variables as valid instrumental variables to detect similar causal effects ( 35 ). When the main method (IVW) results are significant ( P <0.05) and the other three methods agree with IVW, it can be considered that there is a causal relationship. Additionally, the MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO) method is used. If outliers are found, they are excluded and the causal association is re-estimated ( 36 ). To minimize the interference of horizontal pleiotropy on the results, each SNP was manually searched one by one in the human genotype-phenotype database PhenoScanner V2 ( 37 ) to identify and exclude risk factors shared with UL, hypertension and HDP, such as body mass index (BMI) ( 38 , 39 ), waist circumference ( 40 ). Subsequently, SNPs with genome-wide significant associations ( P <5×10 -8 ) were selected, and causal inference was conducted anew.

Because this study has three subtypes of HDP, Bonferroni correction is used in order to reduce the probability of false-positive results. When P <0.017 (0.05/3), it indicates a significant causal relationship. The above methods are all performed using R 4.2.3. Statistical analysis was processed using the R Package Two Sample MR (v 0.5.8). The removal of outliers was conducted using the R Package MRPRESSO (v 1.0). And data visualization was conducted using the R Package forestploter (v 1.1.1) and CMplot(v 4.5.1).

Incorporated instrumental variables

After selecting and harmonizing these instrumental variables ( Figure 2 ), 24 SNPs were used for UL-hypertension MR-analysis, 25 SNPs were used for UL- three types of HDP MR-analysis, and UL-SBP and UL-DBP MR-analysis respectively included 21 SNPs and 18 SNPs (Those selected SNPs can be seen through Supplementary Tables 1-4 ). All instrumental variables passed the Steiger Test and no reverse causation was detected.

Figure 2 Steps for selecting instrumental variables. UL, Uterine leiomyoma; SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms; HDP, Hypertensive disorder of pregnancy; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

Causal link between UL and outcomes

The Cochran' s Q test showed significant heterogeneity in the outcomes of hypertension, SBP, and DBP, so a random effects model was used for causal inference. No heterogeneity was found in the outcomes of gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and eclampsia ( P >0.05), so a fixed effects model was used. The P -values of the MR-Egger intercept test for each outcome did not show evidence of pleiotropy ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 Results of heterogeneity and pleiotropy tests for instrumental variables.

Genetic prediction suggested that UL may increase the risk of hypertension, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, SBP and DBP, but none of these reached statistical significance. MR-Egger method, weighted median method and weighted model suggested that the causal association between UL and each outcome are consistent with IVW. It is worth mentioning that the MR-Egger analysis showed a significant association between UL and DBP [odds ratio, (OR)=1.62, 95% CI: 1.05~2.48, P =0.04]. However, the MR-Egger method is used for causal inference when there is potential pleiotropy, and the IVW method did not suggest a causal relationship, so it cannot be concluded that there is a causal association between UL and DBP ( Table 3 ).

Table 3 UL’s causal inference results with each ending.

After the MR-PRESSO test, no outliers were found in the MR analysis of UL and the three subtypes of HDP. However, there existed outliers in the MR analysis of UL and hypertension (rs116251328, rs4325427, rs72709458), SBP (rs10508765, rs117245733, rs2131371, rs58415480, rs78378222), and DBP (rs117245733, rs35446936). After searching through the PhenoScanner V2 database for all instrumental variables, we identified and filtered out two SNPs (rs78378222, rs116251328), that had been found to be associated with BMI related phenotypes. No SNP had been found to be associated with phenotypes related to waist circumference. After removing these SNPs, the causal inference was re-conducted, and the main results are shown in Figure 3 . The causal inference results of UL and hypertension and DBP were basically consistent with the results before removing the outliers. Interestingly, the IVW method of causal inference of UL and SBP suggested a positive casual relationship (OR =1.67, 95% CI: 1.24~2.25, P =0.0007). The MR-Egger method (OR=2.38, 95% CI: 1.03~5.46, P =0.06), weighted median method (OR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.40~2.70, P =8.34×10 -5 ), and weighted model (OR=2.10, 95% CI: 1.33~3.33, P =0.006). All had consistent results with the IVW method. The Cochrane’s Q test showed P =0.06, and the P -value of the MR-Egger intercept test was 0.39, indicating that there was no heterogeneity or pleiotropy. The scatter plot and Manhattan plot are shown in Figures 4 and 5 . It can be considered that there is a positive causal relationship between UL and SBP.

Figure 3 Forest plot of the results of the IVW method research between uterine leiomyoma and each outcome after excluding outliers and confounding SNPs associated with BMI related phenotypes. SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure.

Figure 4 Scatter plot of the association of UL and SBP. The slope of the straight line indicates the magnitude of the causal association. UL, uterine leiomyoma; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphisms; MR, Mendelian randomization.

Figure 5 Manhattan plot of −log10 values using GWAS summary statistics of UL and SBP. The loci of 16 SNP that were significantly associated with UL and SBP is annotated in the plot. The horizontal axis represents the chromosome number. The dashed line indicates the P <5×10 −8 threshold. GWAS, genome-wide association study; UL, uterine leiomyoma; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SNP, single-nucleotide polymorphism.

This study used large-scale GWAS data from public databases to explore the causal relationship between UL and each outcome (hypertension, HDP, SBP, and DBP) using two-sample MR methods. This analysis found that the occurrence of UL was positively associated with the risk of elevated SBP. No clear evidence of a causal relationship was found between UL and other outcomes.

UL is a common benign tumor in gynecology with a morbidity rate of up to 68.6% in certain area ( 8 ), while hypertension affects over 1 billion people worldwide ( 1 ). Both diseases have caused a significant medical burden globally. The relationship between UL and cardiovascular diseases has been studied for years ( 9 – 15 ), but the research conclusions remain controversial. Previous studies have reported that women with UL have higher SBP levels than women without UL ( 9 , 10 , 15 ), and similar results have been observed in studies of pregnant women ( 18 ). It is consistent with the results of our study, indicating that UL has certain effect on raising blood pressure. Another recent study has found that after surgical removal of UL, patients’ SBP decreased ( 41 ), further indicating a possible link between UL and SBP. This study did not find a statistical association between UL and hypertension, which is consistent with the results of Uimari et al. ( 14 ) and Laughlin-Tommaso et al. ( 15 ). This may be due to differences in blood pressure baselines among different populations in different samples, and the hypertensive effect of UL may not yet meet the diagnostic criteria for hypertension in different populations, leading to variance in study results.

The pathophysiological connection between UL and hypertension remains unclear, yet they share structural similarities. Uterine leiomyoma is typically a benign tumor caused by the growth of smooth muscle cells, while hypertension is also associated with abnormalities in vascular smooth muscle ( 42 ). Therefore, some scholars have proposed that the proliferation of uterine smooth muscle is similar to the changes of atherosclerotic ( 43 ). The study by Hoag et al. ( 44 ) has found that the expression level of creatine kinase (CK) in uterine leiomyoma tissue was higher than that in adjacent uterine muscle tissue, and CK could provide ATP for vascular smooth muscle contraction ( 45 ). Additionally, higher CK activity is associated with increased arterial contractility ( 46 ). It has also been found that angiotensin II receptors type 1 and type 2 are expressed in both the myometrium and uterine fibroids ( 47 ). It is well known that angiotensin II plays an important role in the development of hypertension, so the involvement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may also explain, to some extent, the pathophysiology of these two diseases. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors can inhibit the production of angiotensin II, which have been commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. A cohort study analyzed 353,917 participants has found that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors could reduce the risk of UL, which seems to further support the link between UL and hypertension ( 48 ). Besides, UL may also stimulate smooth muscle proliferation and vasoconstriction through various growth factors such as insulin-like growth factor-1 and platelet-derived growth factor ( 12 ). Further research is needed to explore the biological roles of the identified risk locipotential biological mechanisms connecting risk gene loci with UL and SBP.

The strength of this study is that it first analyzed the relationship between UL and blood pressure using the MR method. However, there are also some limitations. Firstly, despite various sensitivity analyses conducted, it should be noted that the existence of horizontal pleiotropy cannot be fully excluded, which may introduce bias into the results. Secondly, the genetic variants used in this study reflect the impact of UL on blood pressure, but further analysis of the impact of UL’s size, number, and location on blood pressure is lacking. Thirdly, the population of this study was derived from European ancestry. While this reduces population stratification bias, it may not be as reliable when extrapolated to other ethnic groups. Given that GWAS data for African populations are limited, and the sample size and case numbers of GWAS data for Asian populations are relatively small, future studies could pay more attention to expanding GWAS databases for Asians and Africans to further investigate the relationship between uterine leiomyomas and blood pressure in other populations. Besides, we hope that future researchers can conduct higher-quality and more detailed genome-wide association studies to identify genetic loci that affect the location, number, and size of uterine fibroids, so as to further explore the impact of different types of uterine fibroids on blood pressure.

The findings of this study provide robust causal evidence for the association between UL and blood pressure. This implies that UL is not merely a locally growing benign tumor, but it may also have certain impacts on systemic physiological indicators. Pulgar has indicated that UL might be a risk factor for the development of HDP ( 49 ). Consequently, in clinical practice, doctors need to pay closer attention to the blood pressure status of UL patients, particularly pregnant women combined with UL, and consider whether to reassess the patient’s treatment plan. For hypertensive patients who already diagnosed with UL, if there is a case of elevated blood pressure, after ruling out other potential causes for the increase, doctors should be on high alert and consider whether interventional treatment for UL is necessary to prevent further elevation of blood pressure.

However, it is essential to recognize that while Mendelian randomization studies can provide robust causal evidence, their results still need to be validated in larger-scale clinical trials. Therefore, future research should aim to further confirm this discovery and explore the underlying biological mechanisms, in order to provide more precise and effective strategies for the treatment of UL, hypertension, or HDP patients. More rigorous and comprehensive prospective large-scale longitudinal cohort studies can be conducted to clinically validate the relationship between UL and hypertension and HDP, and further analyze whether the size, number, and location of UL have different impacts on blood pressure. It can also be investigated whether there is a change in blood pressure after treatment for UL. This may reduce the incidence and prevalence of hypertension and HDP in patients with UL.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found below: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/studies , GCST90038604, https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/ , ieu-b-38, https://gwas.mrcieu.ac.uk/ , ieu-b-39.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for studies on human participants, as only published GWAS summary statistics and ethically approved data obtained from FinnGen R9 biobank were used. These studies were conducted in accordance with local legislative and institutional requirements. The human samples used in this study were obtained from previous studies that had obtained ethical approval. No written informed consent from the subjects or their legal guardians was required for participation in this study.

Author contributions

HX: Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Resources, Formal analysis, Data curation. YM: Resources, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. YL: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Formal analysis. RL: Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing. ZC: Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. XX: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. XH: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition. XW: Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant number 2022YFC3500403).

Acknowledgments

All data used in this study were obtained from openly available databases. We are grateful to the FinnGen R9 biobank and other investigators for providing the data publicly.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2024.1373724/full#supplementary-material

1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet . (2005) 365:217–23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Mol BWJ, Roberts CT, Thangaratinam S, Magee LA, de Groot CJM, Hofmeyr GJ. Pre-eclampsia. Lancet . (2016) 387:999–1011. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00070-7

3. Denoble AE, Pettker CM. Hypertension screening in pregnancy: remembering the basics, charting the future. JAMA . (2023) 330:1040–1. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.15088

4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 203: chronic hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol . (2019) 133:e26–50. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003020

5. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists’ Task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol . (2013) 122:1122–31. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000437382.03963.88

6. Coronado GD, Marshall LM, Schwartz SM. Complications in pregnancy, labor, and delivery with uterine leiomyomas: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol . (2000) 95:764–9. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00605-5

7. Klatsky PC, Tran ND, Caughey AB, Fujimoto VY. Fibroids and reproductive outcomes: a systematic literature review from conception to delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol . (2008) 198:357–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.039

8. Stewart EA, Cookson CL, Gandolfo RA, Schulze-Rath R. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids: a systematic review. BJOG . (2017) 124:1501–12. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14640

9. Chen Y, Xiong N, Xiao J, Huang X, Chen R, Ye S, et al. Association of uterine fibroids with increased blood pressure: a cross-sectional study and meta-analysis. Hypertens Res . (2022) 45:715–21. doi: 10.1038/s41440-022-00856-w

10. Haan YC, Diemer FS, van der Woude L, Van Montfrans GA, Oehlers GP, Brewster LM. The risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in women with uterine fibroids. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) . (2018) 20:718–26. doi: 10.1111/jch.13253

11. Sivri N, Yalta T, Sayin C, Yalta K, Ozpuyan F, Tastekin E, et al. Evaluation of cardiovascular risk factors in women with uterine leimyoma: is there a link with atherosclerosis? Balk Med J . (2012) 29:320–3. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2012.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Haan YC, Oudman I, de Lange ME, Timmermans A, Ankum WM, Montfrans GA, et al. Hypertension risk in Dutch women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Am J Hypertens . (2015) 28:487–92. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpu183

13. Radin RG, Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, Cozier YC, Kumanyika SK, Wise LA. Hypertension and risk of uterine leiomyomata in US black women. Hum Reprod . (2012) 27:1504–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des046

14. Uimari O, Auvinen J, Jokelainen J, Puukka K, Ruokonen A, Järvelin MR, et al. Uterine fibroids and cardiovascular risk. Hum Reprod . (2016) 31:2689–703. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew249

15. Laughlin-Tommaso SK, Fuchs EL, Wellons MF, Lewis RC, Calderon-Margalit R, Stewart EA, et al. Uterine fibroids and the risk of cardiovascular disease in the coronary artery risk development in young adult women’s study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) . (2019) 28:46–52. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7122

16. Coutinho LM, Assis WA, Spagnuolo-Souza A, Reis FM. Uterine fibroids and pregnancy: how do they affect each other? Reprod Sci . (2022) 29:2145–51. doi: 10.1007/s43032-021-00656-6

17. Laughlin SK, Baird DD, Savitz DA, Herring AH, Hartmann KE. Prevalence of uterine leiomyomas in the first trimester of pregnancy: an ultrasound-screening study. Obstet Gynecol . (2009) 113:630–5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318197bbaf

18. Chen Y, Lin M, Guo P, Huang X, Xu L, Xiong N, et al. Uterine fibroids increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: a prospective cohort study. J Hypertens . (2021) 39:1002–8. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002729

19. Grover S, Del Greco MF, Stein CM, Ziegler A. Mendelian randomization. Methods Mol Biol . (2017) 1666:581–628. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7274-6_29

20. Verduijn M, Siegerink B, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW. Mendelian randomization: use of genetics to enable causal inference in observational studies. Nephrol Dial Transplant . (2010) 25:1394–8. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfq098

21. Visscher PM, Brown MA, McCarthy MI, Yang J. Five years of GWAS discovery. Am J Hum Genet . (2012) 90:7–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.11.029

22. Gallagher CS, Mäkinen N, Harris HR, Rahmioglu N, Uimari O, Cook JP, et al. Genome-wide association and epidemiological analyses reveal common genetic origins between uterine leiomyomata and endometriosis. Nat Commun . (2019) 10:4857. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12536-4

23. Dönertaş HM, Fabian DK, Valenzuela MF, Partridge L, Thornton JM. Common genetic associations between age-related diseases. Nat Aging . (2021) 1:400–12. doi: 10.1038/s43587-021-00051-5

24. Evangelou E, Warren HR, Mosen-Ansorena D, Mifsud B, Pazoki R, Gao H, et al. Genetic analysis of over 1 million people identifies 535 new loci associated with blood pressure traits. Nat Genet . (2018) 50:1412–25. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0205-x

25. Davies NM, Holmes MV, Davey Smith G. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ . (2018) 362:k601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k601

26. Burgess S, Thompson SG, CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. Avoiding bias from weak instruments in Mendelian randomization studies. Int J Epidemiol . (2011) 40:755–64. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr036

27. Huang W, Xiao J, Ji J, Chen L. Association of lipid-lowering drugs with COVID-19 outcomes from a Mendelian randomization study. Elife . (2021) 10:e73873. doi: 10.7554/eLife.73873

28. Burgess S, Timpson NJ, Ebrahim S, Davey Smith G. Mendelian randomization: where are we now and where are we going? Int J Epidemiol . (2015) 44:379–88. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv108

29. Hemani G, Tilling K, Davey Smith G. Orienting the causal relationship between imprecisely measured traits using GWAS summary data. PloS Genet . (2017) 13:e1007081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007081

30. Hemani G, Zheng J, Elsworth B, Wade KH, Haberland V, Baird D, et al. The MR-Base platform supports systematic causal inference across the human phenome. Elife . (2018) 7:e34408. doi: 10.7554/eLife.34408

31. Burgess S, Scott RA, Timpson NJ, Davey Smith G, Thompson SG, EPIC- InterAct Consortium. Using published data in Mendelian randomization: a blueprint for efficient identification of causal risk factors. Eur J Epidemiol . (2015) 30(7):543–52. doi: 10.1007/s10654-015-0011-z

32. Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG. Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol . (2013) 37(7):658–65. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21758

33. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Burgess S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int J Epidemiol . (2015) 44:512–25. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv080

34. Bowden J, Davey Smith G, Haycock PC, Burgess S. Consistent estimation in mendelian randomization with some invalid instruments using a weighted median estimator. Genet Epidemiol . (2016) 40:304–14. doi: 10.1002/gepi.21965

35. Hartwig FP, Davey Smith G, Bowden J. Robust inference in summary data Mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption. Int J Epidemiol . (2017) 46:1985–98. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx102

36. Verbanck M, Chen CY, Neale B, Do R. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat Genet . (2018) 50:693–8. doi: 10.1038/s41588-018-0099-7

37. Kamat MA, Blackshaw JA, Young R, Surendran P, Burgess S, Danesh J, et al. PhenoScanner V2: an expanded tool for searching human genotype-phenotype associations. Bioinformatics . (2019) 35:4851–3. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz469

38. Hu G, Barengo NC, Tuomilehto J, Lakka TA, Nissinen A, Jousilahti P. Relationship of physical activity and body mass index to the risk of hypertension: a prospective study in Finland. Hypertension . (2004) 43:25–30. doi: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000107400.72456.19

39. LifeCycle Project-Maternal Obesity and Childhood Outcomes Study Group, Voerman E, Santos S, Inskip H, Amiano P, Barros H, et al. Association of gestational weight gain with adverse maternal and infant outcomes. JAMA . (2019) 321:1702–15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3820

40. Pétursdóttir Maack H, Sundström Poromaa I, Segeblad B, Lindström L, Jonsson M, Junus K, et al. Waist Circumference Measurement for Prediction of Preeclampsia: a Population-Based Cohort Study. Am J Hypertens . (2022) 35(2):200–6. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpab156

41. Kirschen GW, Yanek L, Borahay M. Relationship among surgical fibroid removal, blood pressure, and biomarkers of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation. Reprod Sci . (2023) 30:2736–42. doi: 10.1007/s43032-023-01215-x

42. Stewart EA E, Borah BJ. Uterine fibroids and hypertension: steps toward understanding the link. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . (2021) 106:e1039–41. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa829

43. Faerstein E, Szklo M, Rosenshein NB. Risk factors for uterine leiomyoma: a practice-based case-control study. II. Atherogenic risk factors and potential sources of uterine irritation. Am J Epidemiol . (2001) 153:11–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/153.1.11

44. Hoag GN, Franks CR, Smith C, DeCoteau WE. Creatine kinase isoenzyme patterns in normal smooth muscle and smooth muscle neoplasms. Clin Biochem . (1980) 13:149–50. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9120(80)91027-9

45. Karamat FA, Oudman I, Ris-Stalpers C, Afink GB, Keijser R, Clark JF, et al. Resistance artery creatine kinase mRNA and blood pressure in humans. Hypertension . (2014) 63:68–73. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.01352

46. Brewster LM, Taherzadeh Z, Volger S, Clark JF, Rolf T, Wolf H, et al. Ethnic differences in resistance artery contractility of normotensive pregnant women. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol . (2010) 299:H431–6. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00919.2009

47. Matsumoto T, Sagawa N, Mukoyama M, Tanaka I, Itoh H, Goto M, et al. Type 2 angiotensin II receptor is expressed in human myometrium and uterine leiomyoma and is down-regulated during pregnancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . (1996) 81:4366–72. doi: 10.1210/jcem.81.12.8954043

48. Fischer NM, Nieuwenhuis TO, Singh B, Yenokyan G, Segars JH. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce uterine fibroid incidence in hypertensive women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab . (2021) 106:e650–9. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa718

49. Pulgar VM. Uterine leiomyoma and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. J Hypertens . (2021) 39:869–70. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002777

Keywords: uterine leiomyoma, hypertension, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, Mendelian randomization, causal relationship

Citation: Xu H, Ma Y, Long Y, Liu R, Cheng Z, Xie X, Han X and Wang X (2024) Uterine leiomyoma causes an increase in systolic blood pressure: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Front. Endocrinol. 15:1373724. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1373724

Received: 20 January 2024; Accepted: 24 April 2024; Published: 10 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Xu, Ma, Long, Liu, Cheng, Xie, Han and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Xuan Wang, [email protected] ; Xingjun Han, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 09 May 2024

Secondary ion mass spectrometry

Nature Reviews Methods Primers volume  4 , Article number:  33 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

This PrimeView highlights how different primary ion beams can be used to sample different surface species.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Secondary ion mass spectrometry. Nat Rev Methods Primers 4 , 33 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-024-00319-1

Download citation

Published : 09 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-024-00319-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies