BB2025 Chap.10 Research Proposals and Critical Appraisal
Research Proposals and Critical Appraisal
Make every section justify the next
The proposal presentation is an argument from a knowledge gap to a feasible study. The literature review should narrow to an unresolved clinical question. The objective should identify a population, outcome and comparison. The design, sampling, measurement and analysis should then estimate that quantity.
Timeline and budget test whether the plan can be delivered, while the impact statement returns to the original gap without promising more than the study can show.
Respect the assignment boundary
The published guidance requires an original human clinical research study. It excludes systematic reviews, meta-analysis, secondary database analysis, animal research and purely cellular or molecular research.
The presentation lasts fifteen minutes followed by questions and answers and is capped at twenty-five content slides beyond the title and transitions. These constraints reward conceptual compression.
Use the rubric as a logic check
The standalone rubric assigns its largest content category to methodology and also assesses background, feasibility, summary, graphics, delivery and critical response.
A polished deck cannot compensate for an unidentified primary outcome or an analysis detached from the objective. Prepare for questions by identifying the strongest design weakness, explaining the chosen compromise and naming evidence that would justify changing the plan.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Knowledge gaps and focused rationales
- 02
Objectives, questions and hypotheses
- 03
Original human clinical study boundary
- 04
Sampling and measurement justification
- 05
Primary outcomes and analysis alignment
- 06
Timeline and budget feasibility
- 07
Presentation graphics and delivery
- 08
Critical response to questions
Worked example · free
Align a proposal from objective to analysis
- 3State a focused objective and primary outcome.
- 4Create a credible comparison and reduce bias.
- 3Align sample-size inputs and the analysis contrast.
Key terms
- Knowledge Gap
- A focused uncertainty in existing evidence that a feasible study can reduce.
- Primary Outcome
- The pre-specified outcome that anchors the main objective, sample size and analysis.
- Eligibility Criteria
- Rules defining who may enter a study and therefore the population represented by its estimate.
- Feasibility
- The deliverability of a proposed design within its recruitment, time, budget and operational constraints.
- Critical Appraisal
- Judgement of whether design, conduct, analysis and interpretation support a study's claim.
- Oral Defence
- A reasoned response that explains, qualifies or revises a methodological decision under questioning.
Research Proposals and Critical Appraisal FAQ
What kind of project is allowed for the presentation?
The guidance requires an original human clinical research study. It excludes systematic reviews, meta-analysis, secondary analysis of existing databases, animal research and purely cellular or molecular research. The proposed study may differ from a future dissertation. Use the assignment boundary to reject an attractive topic before investing in an ineligible design.
How long is the proposal presentation?
The published guidance states fifteen minutes followed by questions and answers, with no more than twenty-five slides excluding the title page and transitional slides. That limit should shape the method story: use one conceptual model, one participant flow and one analysis table rather than compressing paragraphs into smaller text.
How should I prepare for questions after the presentation?
List the strongest objection to the gap, sampling, measurement, feasibility and analysis. Prepare a direct answer, the evidence supporting the choice and the condition under which you would change it. A credible response can concede a limitation while showing why the compromise remains proportionate and what sensitivity analysis or pilot finding would reduce uncertainty.
Exam move
Maintain an alignment sheet throughout the assignment. Each row should connect one knowledge gap to one objective, primary outcome, design feature, sample-size input and analysis contrast. Build the timeline and budget early enough to expose procedures that cannot be delivered. Rehearse the presentation within the published time, then invite interruptions rather than waiting until the end.
For critical appraisal, use a claim-first method: state what the paper concludes, identify the design feature required, test whether it was present, predict how failure affects the estimate and narrow the final verb. Record one decision per slide and remove any detail that does not support it.
Run a hostile rehearsal in which a peer challenges recruitment rate, instrument choice, missing-data handling and the proposed analysis. After each response, note whether new evidence, a design change or a qualified claim is the most credible answer. This builds critical thinking without pretending every limitation can be defended away.
Finish with a consistency audit of every number across the methods, timeline and budget slides. A recruitment target, follow-up duration or cost should never change silently between sections. Before submission, ask a reader to reconstruct the primary analysis using only the objectives, methods and analysis slides. Any ambiguity they find is an alignment defect.
Repair the earlier section rather than explaining the plan verbally after the fact.
Working through Research Proposals and Critical Appraisal in BB2025? Sia is AskSia’s AI Statistics tutor — ask any BB2025 Research Proposals and Critical Appraisal question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how BB2025 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
