Iranian Journal of

---

Research, as systematic way to discover, interpret, explain, predict, modify, and control events, entails the knowledge-based performance of individuals, organizations and systems. Today, knowledge is a tool for development, entrepreneurship, and improving economic value added rather than be a product of development. Also, Health systems, with their increasing complexity and scope, are causes and especially effects of an increasing rate of production, translation and implementation of health-related knowledge. This knowledge, with complexity, vast range, and variety, is produced by variety of research projects which mainly resulted from different problems addressed and presumed epistemic positions by them.

Authors believe that a comprehensive outlook on the variety of research projects in the health system could help to change the stereotypical view on research in the health system. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is a novel, narrative review gathering and presenting various existing classifications of research projects in the light of an inductive distinction. It aims to help specialists in the different levels of health system to profoundly understand and meticulously apply research results and to help researchers and research bodies to more accurately define, manage, prioritize, and allocate resources for future research projects to solve upcoming problems.

Different aspects used in this paper to classify health research projects are the followings: The purpose of research, the research paradigms, tacit or explicit knowledge, primary or secondary knowledge, relation with known disciplines, functions of the health system, the partnerships of non-academic persons, decision-making level, taxonomy of questions, and levels of evidence.

---

Background: It is critical to understand how accurately physicians can estimate the importance of each clinical finding in estimating the probability of a specific diagnosis in the process of clinical decision making. This study aimed to investigate whether physicians’ estimates of the importance of various clinical findings of ascites correlated with the positive likelihood ratios of these findings in diagnosis of ascites.
Methods: One hundred and ten physicians were asked to respond to a questionnaire. In this questionnaire they were presented with a clinical scenario about a patient suspected of having ascites followed by a list of clinical findings. Participants were asked to assign a weight (between 0 and 100%) to each clinical finding based on their perception of how much the presence of that finding changed the probability of ascites for the patient. Positive likelihood ratios of those findings were extracted from current best evidence. We investigated if the weights assigned by physicians were associated with the positive likelihood ratios of those findings.
Results: Significant differences were discovered between the weights assigned by the physicians and the positive likelihood ratios for each clinical finding. Significant positive correlation was observed between the weights assigned by different groups of physicians.
Conclusion: Physicians inaccurately estimated the importance of various clinical findings in the diagnosis of ascites. Further research is needed to determine if such inaccurate estimations would lead to any adverse clinical outcomes.