Received: 2 May 2008 / Accepted: 2 May 2008 / Published online: 7 June 2008 # Springer-Verlag London Ltd 2008 In this issue’s Clinical Research Capsule, we ask the fundamental question: “Why care about research?” Clini- cians sometimes have a distanced attitude towards research. The reasons for this are many: conducting research is difficult; it is only for those who are statistically minded; it means having NIH or equivalent funding; finally, it does not pertain to them as research is separate from patient care. The notion that research is separate and without impact on patient care could not be more erroneous. Why care about clinical research? Our practice is our laboratory Some nuances of human disease not translatable from animal models (social admit reasons, “look sicker”, ) Clinical research allows us to continually refine patient care L. G. Stead : W. W. Decker Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA L. G. Stead (*) Generose G-410, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA e-mail: stead.latha@mayo.edu Int J Emerg Med (2008) 1:121–122 DOI 10.1007/s12245-008-0035-1 CLINICAL RESEARCH CAPSULE Clinical research 101: Why should you care? Latha G. Stead & Wyatt W. Decker Let’s look at a few examples: You are evaluating a patient with an acute ankle injury. Do you recognize the following questions? – – – Unable to bear weight immediately and in ED? Tender on the lateral malleolar tip or posterior aspect of the lateral malleolus? Tender on the medial malleolar tip or posterior aspect of the medial malleolus? Most practicing emergency medicine clinicians will recog- nize these as the questions used for the Ottawa ankle rule [1]. This was a prospective survey administered in two stages: derivation and refinement of the original rules (first stage) and validation of the refined rules (second stage). The cohort consisted of a convenience sample of adults with acute ankle injuries: 1,032 of 1,130 eligible patients in the first stage and 453 of 530 eligible patients in the second stage. While these research method details may seem not useful to daily clinical practice, the results derived from this study certainly are. What about the following physical exam findings? – – – – – No posterior midline cervical-spine tenderness No evidence of intoxication A normal level of alertness No focal neurologic deficit No painful distracting injuries The above represent the NEXUS low risk criteria, which state that if a patent has all of the above, then they do not require cervical spine radiography [2]. This prospective observational study was conducted across 21 centers in the US. The study population consisted of 34,069 patients evaluated by imaging of the cervical spine after blunt trauma. Of these, 2.4% had radiographically documented cervical-spine injury. These results yielded an overall