sections of a research protocol

Write an Error-free Research Protocol As Recommended by WHO: 21 Elements You Shouldn’t Miss!

Principal Investigator: Did you draft the research protocol?

Student: Not yet. I have too many questions about it. Why is it important to write a research protocol? Is it similar to research proposal? What should I include in it? How should I structure it? Is there a specific format?

Researchers at an early stage fall short in understanding the purpose and importance of some supplementary documents, let alone how to write them. Let’s better your understanding of writing an acceptance-worthy research protocol.

Table of Contents

What Is Research Protocol?

The research protocol is a document that describes the background, rationale, objective(s), design, methodology, statistical considerations and organization of a clinical trial. It is a document that outlines the clinical research study plan. Furthermore, the research protocol should be designed to provide a satisfactory answer to the research question. The protocol in effect is the cookbook for conducting your study

Why Is Research Protocol Important?

In clinical research, the research protocol is of paramount importance. It forms the basis of a clinical investigation. It ensures the safety of the clinical trial subjects and integrity of the data collected. Serving as a binding document, the research protocol states what you are—and you are not—allowed to study as part of the trial. Furthermore, it is also considered to be the most important document in your application with your Institution’s Review Board (IRB).

It is written with the contributions and inputs from a medical expert, a statistician, pharmacokinetics expert, the clinical research coordinator, and the project manager to ensure all aspects of the study are covered in the final document.

Is Research Protocol Same As Research Proposal?

Often misinterpreted, research protocol is not similar to research proposal. Here are some significant points of difference between a research protocol and a research proposal:

What Are the Elements/Sections of a Research Protocol?

According to Good Clinical Practice guidelines laid by WHO, a research protocol should include the following:

1. General Information

• Protocol title, protocol identifying number (if any), and date.
• Name and address of the funder.
• Name(s) and contact details of the investigator(s) responsible for conducting the research, the research site(s).
• Responsibilities of each investigator.
• Name(s) and address(es) of the clinical laboratory(ies), other medical and/or technical department(s) and/or institutions involved in the research.

2. Rationale & Background Information

• The rationale and background information provides specific reasons for conducting the research in light of pertinent knowledge about the research topic.
• It is a statement that includes the problem that is the basis of the project, the cause of the research problem, and its possible solutions.
• It should be supported with a brief description of the most relevant literatures published on the research topic.

3. Study Objectives

• The study objectives mentioned in the research proposal states what the investigators hope to accomplish. The research is planned based on this section.
• The research proposal objectives should be simple, clear, specific, and stated prior to conducting the research.
• It could be divided into primary and secondary objectives based on their relativity to the research problem and its solution.

4. Study Design

• The study design justifies the scientific integrity and credibility of the research study.
• The study design should include information on the type of study, the research population or the sampling frame, participation criteria (inclusion, exclusion, and withdrawal), and the expected duration of the study.

5. Methodology

• The methodology section is the most critical section of the research protocol.
• It should include detailed information on the interventions to be made, procedures to be used, measurements to be taken, observations to be made, laboratory investigations to be done, etc.
• The methodology should be standardized and clearly defined if multiple sites are engaged in a specified protocol.

6. Safety Considerations

• The safety of participants is a top-tier priority while conducting clinical research .
• Safety aspects of the research should be scrutinized and provided in the research protocol.

7. Follow-up

• The research protocol clearly indicate of what follow up will be provided to the participating subjects.
• It must also include the duration of the follow-up.

8. Data Management and Statistical Analysis

• The research protocol should include information on how the data will be managed, including data handling and coding for computer analysis, monitoring and verification.
• It should clearly outline the statistical methods proposed to be used for the analysis of data.
• For qualitative approaches, specify in detail how the data will be analysed.

9. Quality Assurance

• The research protocol should clearly describe the quality control and quality assurance system.
• These include GCP, follow up by clinical monitors, DSMB, data management, etc.

10. Expected Outcomes of the Study

• This section indicates how the study will contribute to the advancement of current knowledge, how the results will be utilized beyond publications.
• It must mention how the study will affect health care, health systems, or health policies.

11. Dissemination of Results and Publication Policy

• The research protocol should specify not only how the results will be disseminated in the scientific media, but also to the community and/or the participants, the policy makers, etc.
• The publication policy should be clearly discussed as to who will be mentioned as contributors, who will be acknowledged, etc.

12. Duration of the Project

• The protocol should clearly mention the time likely to be taken for completion of each phase of the project.
• Furthermore a detailed timeline for each activity to be undertaken should also be provided.

13. Anticipated Problems

• The investigators may face some difficulties while conducting the clinical research. This section must include all anticipated problems in successfully completing their projects.
• Furthermore, it should also provide possible solutions to deal with these difficulties.

14. Project Management

• This section includes detailed specifications of the role and responsibility of each investigator of the team.
• Everyone involved in the research project must be mentioned here along with the specific duties they have performed in completing the research.
• The research protocol should also describe the ethical considerations relating to the study.
• It should not only be limited to providing ethics approval, but also the issues that are likely to raise ethical concerns.
• Additionally, the ethics section must also describe how the investigator(s) plan to obtain informed consent from the research participants.
• This section should include a detailed commodity-wise and service-wise breakdown of the requested funds.
• It should also include justification of utilization of each listed item.

17. Supplementary Support for the Project

• This section should include information about the received funding and other anticipated funding for the specific project.

18. Collaboration With Other Researchers or Institutions

• Every researcher or institute that has been a part of the research project must be mentioned in detail in this section of the research protocol.

19. Curriculum Vitae of All Investigators

• The CVs of the principal investigator along with all the co-investigators should be attached with the research protocol.
• Ideally, each CV should be limited to one page only, unless a full-length CV is requested.

20. Other Research Activities of Investigators

• A list of all current research projects being conducted by all investigators must be listed here.

21. References

• All relevant references should be mentioned and cited accurately in this section to avoid plagiarism.

How Do You Write a Research Protocol? (Research Protocol Example)

Main Investigator    

Number of Involved Centers (for multi-centric studies)

Indicate the reference center

Title of the Study

Protocol ID (acronym)

Keywords (up to 7 specific keywords)

Study Design

Mono-centric/multi-centric

Perspective/retrospective

Controlled/uncontrolled

Open-label/single-blinded or double-blinded

Randomized/non-randomized

n parallel branches/n overlapped branches

Experimental/observational

Endpoints (main primary and secondary endpoints to be listed)

Expected Results                                                

Analyzed Criteria

Main variables/endpoints of the primary analysis

Main variables/endpoints of the secondary analysis

Safety variables

Health Economy (if applicable)

Visits and Examinations

Therapeutic plan and goals

Visits/controls schedule (also with graphics)

Comparison to treatment products (if applicable)

Dose and dosage for the study duration (if applicable)

Formulation and power of the studied drugs (if applicable)

Method of administration of the studied drugs (if applicable)

Informed Consent

Study Population

Short description of the main inclusion, exclusion, and withdrawal criteria

Sample Size

Estimated Duration of the Study

Safety Advisory

Classification Needed

Requested Funds

Additional Features (based on study objectives)

Click Here to Download the Research Protocol Example/Template

Be prepared to conduct your clinical research by writing a detailed research protocol. It is as easy as mentioned in this article. Follow the aforementioned path and write an impactful research protocol. All the best!

Clear as template! Please, I need your help to shape me an authentic PROTOCOL RESEARCH on this theme: Using the competency-based approach to foster EFL post beginner learners’ writing ability: the case of Benin context. I’m about to start studies for a master degree. Please help! Thanks for your collaboration. God bless.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

• Trending Now

Breaking Barriers: Sony and Nature unveil “Women in Technology Award”

Sony Group Corporation and the prestigious scientific journal Nature have collaborated to launch the inaugural…

Achieving Research Excellence: Checklist for good research practices

Academia is built on the foundation of trustworthy and high-quality research, supported by the pillars…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Demystifying the Role of Confounding Variables in Research

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.

• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer-Review Week 2023
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

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

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

• IRB-HSR Home
• Getting Started
• Protocol Submission Process
• Submission Types
• Protocol Builder
• Reliance on the IRB-HSR to serve as the Single IRB (sIRB) of record
• Reliance on a Non-IRB-HSR to serve as the Single IRB (sIRB) of Record
• Clinical Research Connect
• CITI Training
• Education Calendar
• IRB-HSR Learning Shots
• Virginia IRB Consortium
• HRPP Education & Training
• Investigator Resources
• IRB Online/ Protocol Builder
• Board Membership Lists
• Calendars & Deadlines
• For IRB Staff
• Determining Human Subjects Research
• Determining HSR or SBS
• Ethical Principles
• HRPP Standard Operating Procedures
• Federal Regulations
• For Research Participants
• Partner Offices
• IRB-HSR PAM & Ed
• EMERGENCY USE
• UVA Non-Human Subject Research Online Tool

Protocol Elements

The following outlines the basic elements of a research protocol. The IRB templates will provide more specific requirements. 

Table of Contents

Introduction/abstract, objectives and rationale, methods and procedures, subject population selection and inclusion/exclusion criteria, risks and benefits, provisions for treatment of adverse events, subject recruitment, review preparatory to research and recruitment.

• Subject Compensation/Reimbursement

Study Management and Personnel

• Confidentiality and Data Storage

Data Analysis and Evaluation Techniques

• Bibliography

Protocols coming from industry or protocols for multi-site studies typically include a table of contents. The UVA IRB protocol templates created by Protocol Builder do not require a table of contents. 

The introduction should indicate the specific reasons or rationale for performing the study, the hypotheses, study design (  e.g.  , record review, questionnaire, specimen collection, interview, prospective evaluation of a drug or device), and an overview of the literature on comparable studies. If applicable, Principal Investigators should briefly describe the intervention, treatment, drugs, or devices to be used. 

A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement which may include a prediction. The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables. 

The objectives of the study should be: 

• based on the research question(s); 
• limited in scope and number; 
• based on specific quantifiable endpoints; and 
• congruent with the study design. 

The scientific rationale should provide enough information to answer the question, "Why should this study be done?" It should contain a referenced review of the literature specifically pertaining to the reasons for the current study and previous investigations that lead the investigator to pose the specific question. In addition, it should include a justification of the research design and the use of any placebos. 

This section describes the study design, the study population, the research intervention, if applicable, sample selection, and an appropriate analytic plan. Specific recommendations for presenting study methods are presented below. 

For Clinical Research 

The Methods section for clinical study protocols evaluating a drug, device or a treatment modality should explain the treatment plan. Baseline diagnostic tests, initial laboratory assessments for determining eligibility of a potential subject to enter the trial, and any procedures, physical exams, tests, interviews, videotapes, and the amount of time the subject will be involved in the study should be detailed. Principal Investigators should consider including a table or schematic of study events by visit to clarify for the IRB reviewers what tests, procedures, etc. will be done and when they will be done. 

Principal Investigators should make clear which interventions and procedures are standard clinical care for the subject's condition and which are experimental or, if not experimental, are being performed solely as a result of the subject's participation in the clinical research. 

Principal Investigators should discuss (1) the procedures for monitoring the subject's condition and (2) reasons for dropping any participant from the study  (e.g.  , relapse, lack of subject compliance). 

Subject Selection and Inclusion Criteria

UVA recognizes its responsibility to create an environment in which the equitable selection of research participants is fostered. Therefore, Principal Investigators must provide the IRB the details on the proposed involvement of humans in the research. Principal Investigators must describe the number of subjects and observations necessary to obtain statistically valid results. The type of study design and the procedures for randomization, blinding, crossover, controls (positive and negative), and, washout, as applicable, must all be explained. Principal Investigators must specify the:

• characteristics of the subject population, 
• number of subjects to be enrolled (e.g. sign consent)
• number of subjects (e.g.  the number of subjects required to obtain statistically valid results), 
• age ranges of subjects, 
• health statuses of subjects, and 
• the gender composition and racial/ethnic composition of the subject population. If ethnic, racial and gender estimates are not specified, the Principal Investigator must provide a clear rationale for exclusion of this information. 

Methods for subject screening and eligibility should be described in detail. Screening for enrollment into a study entails careful evaluation of the potential subject on the basis of the criteria that are stated in the protocol. 

Subject eligibility criteria should be listed, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other inclusion and exclusion criteria. If a potential subject conforms to those preliminary criteria, more specific screening evaluations can be performed, such as the taking of a medical history, a physical examination, and clinical laboratory tests, such as a complete blood count with differential; blood chemistry analysis (e.g.  electrolytes, cholesterol, and triglycerides, urinalysis, an electrocardiogram, and blood pressure.)

The protocol should state the limits of acceptability for the aforementioned evaluations; for example, it should define a normal range for the clinical laboratory tests and include appropriate statements about the interpretation of those tests (e.g. statements on borderline values). 

If the proposed study may include a vulnerable or special subject population, investigators shall refer to the additional requirements for these subject populations. 

Subject Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion criteria may include such things as severity of disease, mental incompetence, use of other medication concomitantly, or presence of other diseases. Principal Investigators must explain and justify the exclusion of women and/or minority groups and children.

Women and Minorities

All research involving human subjects should be designed and conducted to include members of both genders and members of minority groups, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes that such inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. 

The NIH acknowledges clear scientific and public health reasons for specifically including members of minority groups in studies of health problems that disproportionately affect U.S. racial/ethnic minority populations. In attempting to include minority groups, Principal Investigators should assess the theoretical and/or scientific connections between race/ethnicity in the topic of study. FDA Guidelines require that subjects recruited to trials reflect the population that will receive the drug/therapeutic intervention when it is marketed or approved for administration. FDA Guidelines also recommend that "representatives of both genders be included in clinical trials in numbers adequate to allow detection of clinically significant gender related differences in drug response." 

For NIH-defined Phase I and II clinical trials, the systematic inclusion and reporting of information on women and minorities and minority subpopulations is generally required to increase the scientific base of knowledge about them. For Phase III clinical trials, the design of the trials must reflect the current state of knowledge about any clinically important gender and/or race/ethnicity differences in the response to the intervention. Evidence may include data from prior animal studies, clinical observations, metabolic studies, genetic studies, pharmacology studies, and observational, epidemiologic and other relevant studies. The nature of the evidence should be used to determine the extent to which women, men and members of minority groups and their subpopulations must be included. In addition, national statistics on the disease, disorder or condition under study and national population statistics should be used in designing Phase III clinical trials. 

Studies should employ a design with gender, racial and/or age representations appropriate to the known incidence/prevalence of the disease or condition being studied. If subjects of a certain gender, race or age group are to be excluded and it can reasonably be assumed that the drug or therapeutic intervention when approved will be administered to both sexes and all age and racial groups, the investigator  must  clearly explain and justify such exclusion. 

It is not expected that every minority group and subpopulation will be included in each study; however, broad representation and diversity are the goals, even if multiple clinics and sites are needed to accomplish it. 

Minority groups recognized by NIH include: 

• American Indian or Alaskan Native (person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America , and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition); 
• (ii) Asian or Pacific Islander (person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent or the Pacific Islands and Samoa); 
• (iii) Black, not of Hispanic origin (a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa ); and 
• (iv) Hispanic (a person or Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race). 

Each minority group may contain subpopulations which are delimited by geographic origins, national origins and/or cultural differences. The minority group or subpopulation to which an individual belongs is determined by self-reporting. 

Subject Withdrawal Criteria 

A protocol shall include subject withdrawal criteria and procedures specifying 

• when and how to withdraw subjects from the trial, 
• the type and timing of data to be collected for withdrawn subjects, 
• whether and how subjects will be replaced, and 
• the follow-up for such subjects. 

If data collected for research purposes has clinical significance for individuals in the study but the data will be analyzed at another institution, resulting in substantial delay in receipt of important clinical findings affecting the subject's welfare, Principal Investigators should specify how they intend to monitor the subject locally. 

Background 

Per DHHS and FDA regulations (45 CFR 46.111 and 21 CFR 56.111) two of the required criteria for granting IRB approval of the research are: 

• Risks to subjects are minimized by using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk, and whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes. 
• Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB will consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research, as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research. 

Definitions 

• Benefit: A valued or desired outcome; an advantage. 
• Risk: The probability of harm or injury (physical, psychological, social, or economic) occurring as a result of participation in a research study. Both the probability and magnitude of possible harm may vary from minimal to significant. Federal regulations define only "minimal risk." 
• Minimal Risk: A risk is minimal where the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the proposed research are not greater, in and of themselves, than those ordinarily encountered in daily lives of the general population or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests. 
• Minimal Risk for Research involving Prisoners: The definition of minimal risk for research involving prisoners differs somewhat from that given for non-institutionalized adults. Minimal risk is in this case is defined as, "the probability and magnitude of physical or psychological harm that is normally encountered in the daily lives , or in the routine medical, dental or psychological examinations of healthy persons ." 

Overview of Risks and Benefits 

There are two sources of confusion in the assessment of risks and benefits. One arises from the language employed in the discussion: 

• "Risk" is a word expressing probabilities; 
• "Benefits" is a word expressing a fact or state of affairs. 

It is more accurate to speak as if both were in the realm of probability: i.e., risks and expected or anticipated benefits. 

Confusion also may arise because "risks" can refer to two quite different things: 

• those chances that specific individuals are willing to undertake for some desired goal; or 
• the conditions that make a situation harmful to a subject. 

Researchers should provide detailed information in the IRB protocol about potential risks and benefits associated with the research, and provide information about the probability, magnitude and potential harms associated with each risk. 

Risk/Benefit Assessment 

The IRB is responsible for evaluating the potential risks and weighing the probability of the risk occurring and the magnitude of harm that may result. It must then judge whether the anticipated benefit, either of new knowledge or of improved health for the research subjects, justifies inviting any person to undertake the risks. The IRB cannot approve research in which the risks are judged unreasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits. The IRB must: 

• Identify the risks associated with the research, as distinguished from the risks of therapies the subjects would receive even if not participating in research; 
• Determine that the risks will be minimized to the extent possible [see below]; 
• Identify the probable benefits to be derived from the research; 
• Determine that the risks are reasonable in relation to be benefits to subjects, if any, and the importance of the knowledge to be gained; and 
• Assure that potential subjects will be provided with an accurate and fair description (during consent) of the risks or discomforts and the anticipated benefits. 

Types of Risk to Research Subjects 

The risks to which research subjects may be exposed have been classified as physical, psychological, social, and economic. 

Physical Harms:  Medical research often involves exposure to minor pain, discomfort, or injury from invasive medical procedures, or harm from possible side effects of drugs. All of these should be considered "risks" for purposes of IRB review. Some of the adverse effects that result from medical procedures or drugs can be permanent, but most are transient. Procedures commonly used in medical research usually result in no more than minor discomfort (e.g., temporary dizziness, the pain associated with venipuncture).  Some medical research is designed only to measure more carefully the effects of therapeutic or diagnostic procedures applied in the course of caring for an illness. Such research may not entail any significant risks beyond those presented by medically indicated interventions. On the other hand, research designed to evaluate new drugs or procedures may present more than minimal risk, and, on occasion, can cause serious or disabling injuries.  Psychological Harms:  Participation in research may result in undesired changes in thought processes and emotion (e.g., episodes of depression, confusion, or hallucination resulting from drugs, feelings of stress, guilt, and loss of self-esteem). These changes may be transitory, recurrent, or permanent. Most psychological risks are minimal or transitory, but some research has the potential for causing serious psychological harm.  Stress and feelings of guilt or embarrassment may arise simply from thinking or talking about one's own behavior or attitudes on sensitive topics such as drug use, sexual preferences, selfishness, and violence. These feelings may be aroused when the subject is being interviewed or filling out a questionnaire. Stress may also be induced when the researchers manipulate the subjects' environment - as when "emergencies" or fake "assaults" are staged to observe how passersby respond. More frequently, however, is the possibility of psychological harm when behavioral research involves an element of deception.  Invasion of privacy  is a risk of a somewhat different character. In the research context, it usually involves either covert observation or "participant" observation of behavior that the subjects consider private. 

The IRB must make two determinations: 

• is the invasion of privacy involved acceptable in light of the subjects' reasonable expectations of privacy in the situation under study; and 
• is the research question of sufficient importance to justify the intrusion? 

The IRB must also consider whether the research design could be modified so that the study can be conducted without invading the privacy of the subjects.  Breach of confidentiality  is sometimes confused with invasion of privacy, but it is really a different risk. Invasion of privacy concerns access to a person's body or behavior without consent; confidentiality of data concerns safeguarding information that has been given voluntarily by one person to another.  Some research requires the use of a subject's hospital, school, or employment records. Access to such records for legitimate research purposes is generally acceptable, as long as the researcher protects the confidentiality of that information. However, it is important to recognize that a breach of confidentiality may result in psychological harm to individuals (in the form of embarrassment, guilt, stress, and so forth) or in social harm (see below).  Social and Economic Harms:  Some invasions of privacy and breaches of confidentiality may result in embarrassment within one's business or social group, loss of employment, or criminal prosecution. Areas of particular sensitivity are information regarding alcohol or drug abuse, mental illness, illegal activities, and sexual behavior. Some social and behavioral research may yield information about individuals that could "label" or "stigmatize" the subjects. (e.g., as actual or potential delinquents or schizophrenics). Confidentiality safeguards must be strong in these instances.  Participation in research may result in additional actual costs to individuals. Any anticipated costs to research participants should be described to prospective subjects during the consent process. 

Ways to Minimize Risk 

• Provide complete information in the protocol regarding the experimental design and the scientific rationale underlying the proposed research, including the results of previous animal and human studies. 
• Assemble a research team with sufficient expertise and experience to conduct the research. 
• Ensure that the projected sample size is sufficient to yield useful results. 
• Collect data from standard-of-care procedures to avoid unnecessary risk, particularly for invasive or risky procedures (e.g., spinal taps, cardiac catheterization). 
• Incorporate adequate safeguards into the research design such as an appropriate data safety monitoring plan, the presence of trained personnel who can respond to emergencies, and procedures to protect the confidentiality of the data (e.g., encryption, codes, and passwords). 

Principal Investigators should conduct a detailed and appropriate literature review, and should detail: 

• all possible risks to the subject, whether physical, psychological, social, economic, legal, or 
• where the research may present a legal risk to subjects through a loss of confidentiality, address the need for a  Certificate of Confidentiality . 

If other methods of research present fewer risks, Principal Investigators should describe those, if any, that were considered and why they will not be used.  Any potential for discomfort associated with any test or procedure performed for research purposes should be noted. 

In general, risks to subjects must be minimized by using procedures which are consistent with sound research design and which do not unnecessarily expose subjects to risk and whenever appropriate, by using data and procedures already being performed on the subjects for diagnostic or treatment purposes. 

For all research involving any risk of physical injury (including any adverse effect affecting the body, such as rashes and infections) these risks must be specified. If there are none, state: "There are no risks of physical injury.  However, if there are risks of physical injury, the protocol should state the potential injury, a careful estimate of its probability and severity, and its potential duration and the likelihood of its reversibility. 

There should be a statement as to whether these risks are presented by: 

• a procedure or modality performed or administered as part of standard care or 
• a procedure or modality performed or administered solely as a result of the subjects participation in the research protocol. 

Principal Investigators should specify: 

• quantities of body fluids or tissues (  e.g.  , volume of blood, urine, saliva, number of biopsies), 
• the time the subject will have to spend being tested, and 
• the duration of the study. 

Discussion of the risks should also include the risks of non-treatment.  If drugs or medical devices are being used which have known potential adverse side effects Principal Investigators should indicate if side effects are reversible.  Risks associated with a drug washout period, non-treatment or discontinuation of active drugs must be addressed by Principal Investigators.  Principal Investigators shall include a description of procedures (including confidentiality safeguards) for protecting against or minimizing injuries (physical, psychological and social) and provide an assessment of their likely effectiveness. There should be a clear statement about procedures for early detection of adverse effects and what steps, if any, will be taken to avoid injury to subjects, for example, the subject might be withdrawn from the study or a corrective drug might be administered. 

The Principal Investigator should indicate where subjects will be recruited (e.g.   in patient unit, walk in clinic, emergency room, ICU, or outside of UVA). The Principal Investigator should also note whether normal controls are to be used and, if applicable, recruitment methods (e.g. advertisements). . 

The IRB reviews the information contained in advertisements and other subject recruitment material and the mode of its communication. The IRB also reviews the format of any Internet information and the final copy of printed advertisements to evaluate the relative size of type used and other visual effects. 

IRB-HSR review and approval is required prior to initiating research involving health information. Investigators are not authorized to contact potential research subjects identified in reviews preparatory to research unless they are directly responsible for care of the potential subject and entitled to PHI as a result of that duty. All recruitment materials must be approved by the IRB prior to use.  Information about recruitment materials, IRB-HSR submission process, and templates are available on the IRB-HSR Website under  Subject Selection, Recruitment and Compensation .

Subject Compensation/Reimbursement 

It is not uncommon for subjects to be paid for their participation in research, especially in the early phases of investigational drug or device research or in behavioral and epidemiological research which require a significant time commitment on the part of the subject. The investigator should set forth the compensation plan in the protocol. Plans which call for the entire payment being made at the completion of the protocol may appear to be coercive. Subjects may also be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses related to participation (travel costs, parking expenses, child care, etc.) If such monetary compensation or reimbursement is to be offered, investigators should state the amount subjects are to receive. To view additional information on the difference between compensation and reimbursement click on “ More Information ”. Researchers should be aware of the  Compensation to Research Trial Participants Procedure  from the Office of the Vice President for Research. The procedure requires the researcher to provide justification if compensation cannot be done via the UVA Oracle System or if the researcher is unable to obtain tax information such as name, address, and Social Security number of recipient of compensation. For additional info see: Justification for use of an alternative method of compensation

Justification for not collecting the tax information . 

The Principal Investigator should name the professional staff who will be performing the study as sub-investigators, the research study coordinators, and other study support staff. Study staff must complete the UVA required CITI training program. Where specimens or data will be collected and stored, the Principal Investigator should indicate who will be responsible for storage, under what circumstances data or specimens will be released, what future types of research are anticipated using the specimens or data, and what steps will be taken to protect confidentiality (e.g. all identifiers stripped or, if coded, persons with access to code and location of code). Methods for protecting the security of information should be included. If the study is a Phase I or Phase II clinical trial and provides for a Data and Safety Management Board, those provisions should be included in the Data and Safety Monitoring Plan. 

In long term studies, study management issues that the Principal Investigator should consider are: the continuity of study personnel; availability of co-investigators; the timing of periodic review of data to assess trends; continuing training for data managers or study personnel to eliminate deviations from the protocol; and the investigator's plan, if any, to "re consent" subjects and obtain authorization over a number of years.

Confidentiality and Data Storage 

When appropriate, the subject should be assured that steps will be taken to assure confidentiality. The Principal Investigator should explain how subject confidentiality will be preserved, how data will be kept confidential and used for professional purposes, and whether data will be coded and where the data will be kept (  i.e.  , in locked files). This is particularly important in studies in which information will be recorded which, in the view of the subject, is sufficiently sensitive so that he/she would not wish persons other than the investigators to have access to it.  The protocol should also address any potential harm resulting. Whatever measures are taken to assure confidentiality should also be discussed in general terms in the consent form. Certain research may qualify for additional privacy protection in the form of a  Certificate of Confidentiality  (federal funding is not required).   Studies that are federally funded and that collect identifiable information are automatically granted a Certificate of Confidentiality by the NIH.   Investigators for studies not funded by the federal government may request a Certificate of Confidentiality to be issued by a Federal Agency when research is of a sensitive nature (e.g. involves information pertaining to illegal conduct or relating to the use of alcohol or drugs, sexual attitudes, preferences or practices, mental health, or information potentially damaging to the subject's financial standing, employability or reputation) and the additional protection is judged necessary to achieve the research objectives. 

The Principal Investigator should describe the types of analyses to be performed and evaluation techniques (endpoints, pharmacodynamic assessments, outcome measurements, etc.). If the study entails the collection of specimens, the analytical procedure to be followed should be presented and referenced (unless obvious). If a new technique that has not been documented in the literature is to be used, the Principal Investigator should describe the technique or include a statement about the method that will be developed. The Principal Investigator should indicate determinations of response to therapy. These may include laboratory assays, biopsies, bone marrow testing, absence of symptoms, or normal blood levels. The definition of partial response and failure should be included.  If the study is designed to evaluate behavior through the use of subjective or objective rating scales, or to study quality of life or activities of daily living, the method of evaluation should be explained with references.  The description of the analytical and statistical techniques should be as explicit as possible. All manipulations of the data should be explained, and the statistical methods to be used should be identified. Simple statements about an "appropriate analytical technique" and an "appropriate statistical test" are discouraged; they imply that the investigator has not fully planned the study. 

Bibliography 

A reasonable list of references directly related to the study should be included. 

When additional information is needed to support decisions made by the Principal Investigator, it should be included in an appendix. Typically, appendices include such information as height and weight tables, a description of analytical methodology, calculations, subject screening criteria, subjective and objective rating scales and any supportive literature. Any diagrams for new medical devices or brief reprints from journals might also prove useful.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Bras Pneumol
• v.49(6); 2023
• PMC10760430

Crafting a research protocol: a stepwise comprehensive approach

Elaboração de um protocolo de pesquisa: abordagem abrangente passo a passo, ricardo gassmann figueiredo.

1 . Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Coletiva, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana - PPGSC-UEFS - Feira de Santana (BA) Brasil.

2 Methods in Epidemiologic, Clinical, and Operations Research-MECOR-program, American Thoracic Society/Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax, Montevideo, Uruguay.

Cecilia María Patino

3 Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (CA) USA.

Juliana Carvalho Ferreira

4 . Divisão de Pneumologia, Instituto do Coração, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo (SP) Brasil.

PRACTICAL SCENARIO

A group of researchers plan to conduct a cross-sectional study to estimate the prevalence of frailty in elderly patients with moderate to severe asthma and to report a measure of association between asthma control and frailty. 1 The research protocol outlines the complex interactions of asthma control in frail patients and motivation to address this research question. Study design, objectives, methods, ethical issues, risks, and impact were also detailed in the protocol.

WHAT IS A RESEARCH PROTOCOL?

A well-structured research protocol guides researchers through the intricate process of conducting rigorous research. A research protocol is designed to be concise and self-contained, and to summarize the core aspects of the study. Self-discipline is vital in this process, as it requires the investigator to structure the central concepts of the study and reveal particular issues that demand attention. 2 The research protocol often serves as the foundation for the development of manual of operating procedures, which includes comprehensive information on the organization and policies of the study, as well as an operational approach to the procedures outlined in the study protocol; therefore, both documents complement each other.

ELEMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROTOCOL

The research protocol framework (outlined in Chart 1 ) usually includes a title, rationale, background information, objectives, methodology, data management, statistical plan, quality control, ethics, budget, developing plan, timeline, references, and appendices, although the sections included vary depending on institutional templates.

The title should be concise, descriptive, and engage readers, effectively reflecting the core of the research. 3 The background section outlines the driving factors and motivation for conducting the research. It should provide a broad context, elucidate the problem, address specific knowledge gaps, and establish the rationale for the study. In our practical example, the authors provided background information about how the multidimensional aspects of frailty are imbricated into proper asthma management in patients with advanced age. This section should align with the objectives, highlighting the potential impact of the study. Research objectives should be clear, measurable, precise, and set before conducting the study. 2 After the statement of the primary objective, secondary aims might be appropriate. The objectives will guide the study design and methodology, directing attention toward the intended research outcomes.

The methods section is a detailed blueprint of the research project and the basis for the manual of operating procedures. It should detail the study design, participant selection (eligibility, sampling, and recruitment), variables, data acquisition, data management (storage, security, privacy, and treatment of missing data), statistical plan, and sample size calculation. The scientific robustness of the study relies on its methodology, ensuring validity and replicability. The statistical plan should clearly outline the analysis methods, software used, and criteria for determining statistical significance. Quality control mechanisms uphold the internal validity of the study. This segment should describe measures to minimize bias and ensure data quality. 2 Steps might include regular data verification, calibration and certification of instruments, as well as research personnel training.

Ethical considerations are paramount in research. This section should document the issues that are likely to raise ethical concerns, including informed consent forms, confidentiality, data protection, and potential ethical dilemmas. 3 Moreover, it should also mention approvals obtained from institutional review boards. The budget section details the financial requirements of the research. It includes costs with personnel, equipment, materials, logistics, consumables, and contingencies. A realistic and well-planned timeline is crucial for successful project management.

Deficiencies in effectively disseminating and transferring research-based knowledge into clinical practice can impair the potential benefits of the research project. Therefore, most health research funding agencies expect commitment from investigators to disseminate the study findings actively. Integrating a dissemination plan in the research protocol will facilitate effective communication of research outcomes to the scientific community and those who can apply the knowledge in real-world situations.

KEY MESSAGES

• A comprehensive research protocol not only provides a roadmap for the implementation of the study but also ensures that the research question is addressed according to high-quality research standards.
• Quality control is essential to improve internal validity of the study.
• A structured approach to conducting research reduces the likelihood of misleading conclusions and biases, ensuring validity and reproducibility of the study.

How to Write a Study Protocol

• First Online: 02 February 2019

Cite this chapter

• Lukas B. Moser 8 , 9 &
• Michael T. Hirschmann 8 , 9  

2499 Accesses

This chapter aims to provide a guide for young trainees writing their first study protocol. It includes important aspects junior researchers should consider before getting started and preparing their first study protocol. After having read the chapter, the reader should have a good idea about what a study protocol is about and be able to answer the question why, when, and how a study protocol should be written. Finally, the reader will be prepared to master the very first step of conducting a successful study—writing a brief, concise, but comprehensive study protocol.

Study protocol examples of typical clinical scenarios further illustrate the approach to this mandatory and important part of a research project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Discussion and Conclusion

The Research Protocol

A Primer on Practice Management Guidelines

Al-Jundi A, Sakka S. Protocol writing in clinical research. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:ZE10–3.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Babyak MA. What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med. 2004;66:411–21.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bando K, Sato T. Did you write a protocol before starting your project? Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63:71–7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barletta JF. Conducting a successful residency research project. Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72:92.

Brody BA, McCullough LB, Sharp RR. Consensus and controversy in clinical research ethics. JAMA. 2005;294:1411–4.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Doran G. There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manag Rev. 1981;70:35–6.

Google Scholar  

Doran PC. Understanding dentures: instructions to patients. J Colo Dent Assoc. 1981;59:4–8.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605–13.

Fronteira I. How to design a (good) epidemiological observational study: epidemiological research protocol at a glance. Acta Medica Port. 2013;26:731–6.

Ghooi RB, Divekar D. Insurance in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2014;5:145–50.

Gilmore SJ. Evaluating statistics in clinical trials: making the unintelligible intelligible. Australas J Dermatol. 2008;49:177–84; quiz 185–176.

Huang Y, Gilbert PB. Comparing biomarkers as principal surrogate endpoints. Biometrics. 2011;67:1442–51.

Kanji S. Turning your research idea into a proposal worth funding. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68:458–64.

O’Brien K, Wright J. How to write a protocol. J Orthod. 2002;29:58–61.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.

Rosenthal R, Schafer J, Briel M, Bucher HC, Oertli D, Dell-Kuster S. How to write a surgical clinical research protocol: literature review and practical guide. Am J Surg. 2014;207:299–312.

Sade RM, Akins CW, Weisel RD. Managing conflicts of interest. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:971–2.

Skelly AC, Dettori JR, Brodt ED. Assessing bias: the importance of considering confounding. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012;3:9–12.

Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297:1233–40.

Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e297.

Vavken P, Culen G, Dorotka R. Management of confounding in controlled orthopaedic trials: a cross-sectional study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:985–9.

Warren MD. Aide-memoire for preparing a protocol. Br Med J. 1978;1:1195–6.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Liestal, Laufen), Bruderholz, Switzerland

Lukas B. Moser & Michael T. Hirschmann

University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Hirschmann .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

UPMC Rooney Sports Complex, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Volker Musahl

Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden

Jón Karlsson

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Laufen und Liestal), Bruderholz, Switzerland

Michael T. Hirschmann

McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Olufemi R. Ayeni

Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

Robert G. Marx

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

Jason L. Koh

Institute for Medical Science in Sports, Osaka Health Science University, Osaka, Japan

Norimasa Nakamura

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 ISAKOS

About this chapter

Moser, L.B., Hirschmann, M.T. (2019). How to Write a Study Protocol. In: Musahl, V., et al. Basic Methods Handbook for Clinical Orthopaedic Research. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58254-1_8

Published : 02 February 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-662-58253-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-662-58254-1

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

How to write a research protocol

• October 2016
• Obstetrics and Gynaecology Forum 22(4):101-107
• 22(4):101-107
• CC BY-NC 3.0

• University of KwaZulu-Natal

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Ana Rosa Bodoque Osma

• Mohamed Zina
• Krizia Mae Francisco
• Catherine M Burns

• Liana Mollo Tormin
• Kauanne Santos Carvalho
• Ana Cristina de Jesus Alves
• Andreas Ziegler
• Kristin Forßmann
• Sabine Konopka
• Katja Krockenberger

• Reitze Rodseth
• A.D. Grimes
• F.K. Schulz
• Kenneth F Schulz
• David A. Grimes

• David A Grimes
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up