Topics your committee wants to see.
Gap analysis against recent literature, feasibility scoring against your specialty, timeframe and institutional resources, and a shortlist your guide can sign off on.
What a research topic selection involves
A thesis topic determines the next two to three years of a postgraduate's research life, the first publication on their CV, and often the direction of their subspecialty interest. Choosing it badly - a topic that is too broad, not feasible in your institution's setup, already over-researched, or misaligned with what your guide wants to supervise - costs time that cannot be recovered. The paradox is that the decision is usually made early, when the candidate knows least about the field.
We work with MD, MS, DNB and DM candidates and their guides to shortlist topics that pass three tests. They answer a genuine gap in the current literature. They are feasible against your timeline, patient volume, ethics constraints and statistical resources. And they align with what your supervisor can actually guide - their publications, their active research themes, their departmental collaborations.
The output is a ranked shortlist of three to five topics with a gap-analysis brief for each, scored on Cummings's FINER criteria (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant). You and your guide make the final choice; we do the reading and scoring that makes the choice informed rather than reactive.
What this covers
- Specialty and sub-specialty brainstorming against your interests and career direction
- Literature review to identify active research themes and genuine gaps
- Topic refinement from broad theme to PICO-structured research question
- Feasibility scoring against timeline, patient volume, ethics, funding and statistical complexity
- FINER assessment (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) on each shortlisted topic
- Alignment check against your supervisor's existing publications and research programme
- Review of institutional data access, equipment and resources needed
- Ethics-committee feasibility scan (will this likely clear IEC, or does it raise uncommon issues)
- Indicative statistical approach and rough sample size for each shortlisted topic
- Brief citation to the key papers on each shortlisted topic so you can read in
How we work on topic selection
- 01
Scoping brief with you and your guide
We start with a short call covering your specialty, clinical interests, career direction, your guide's research themes, and your institution's typical timeline, patient volume and ethics appetite. If your guide has specific themes they would like supervised, those are captured.
- 02
Literature gap scan
We run a structured literature scan across the specialty areas of interest, using PubMed, Scopus and specialty-specific databases. The scan identifies active research themes, recent high-citation work, and gaps - questions that are methodologically possible but not yet well answered.
- 03
Shortlist and FINER scoring
Three to five topics are shortlisted, each framed as a PICO-structured research question. Each topic is scored against Cummings's FINER criteria (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant) on a 0-5 scale per dimension, with the reasoning shown.
- 04
Feasibility and resource check
For each shortlisted topic, we sketch: the likely study design, approximate sample size, patient-volume requirement, ethics considerations (e.g., vulnerable populations, device approvals), statistical tools needed, and whether your institution's existing infrastructure supports it.
- 05
Supervisor alignment review
The shortlist is cross-checked against your guide's recent publications and active research. A topic that your guide has no real interest in, or cannot bring expertise to, is filtered out regardless of its scientific interest.
- 06
Delivery and review call
You and your guide receive the ranked shortlist with gap briefs. We hold a review call to answer questions, refine the preferred topic, and hand over key citations so you can start reading.
What you get
- Ranked shortlist of three to five topics, each framed as a PICO research question
- Gap-analysis brief per topic (what is known, what is unanswered, key references)
- FINER scoring with explicit reasoning per dimension
- Feasibility notes: study design, sample size estimate, resource requirements
- Ethics-committee feasibility scan per topic
- Supervisor-alignment commentary for each shortlisted topic
- Starter reading list of 8-12 key papers per topic
- One review call (or written back-and-forth) with you and your guide
Frameworks we use
Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, Relevant - the standard framework for screening clinical-research questions.
Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (and Study design). Forces the research question into an answerable form.
Indian Council of Medical Research's periodically published priority areas for biomedical research in India.
National Medical Commission (formerly MCI) regulations on postgraduate curriculum and thesis expectations.
Common questions about topic selection
My guide has already told me a rough theme. Do I still need this?
If your guide has given you a specific, well-defined research question in their active area - yes, you are set. If you have been given a broad theme like 'something on sepsis in the ICU' or 'a study on paediatric outcomes', there is still substantial narrowing to do. A broad theme is not a research question; it is the starting point. Our role is to turn the theme into a ranked shortlist of specific PICO-framed questions your guide can pick from. Most guides appreciate this - it is work they would rather not do themselves.
How do you judge what is 'novel' without being a specialist in my subspecialty?
Novelty in medical research is usually narrower than it looks. It is rarely a completely new question; it is more often a known question asked in a new population, a new setting, a new comparison, or with a new outcome measure. We assess novelty by running a structured search on the shortlisted question and grading what we find: nothing close (genuinely novel, but often a feasibility red flag); similar work in different populations (novel in context); existing reviews with no recent update (opportunity); fully answered with consistent evidence (move on). We also cross-check with your guide, who knows the subspecialty literature better than any generalist can.
What does 'feasible' mean in practice at an Indian medical institution?
Feasibility against the real constraints of your institution: will your hospital see enough of the condition in the timeframe; is there a retrospective dataset you can tap; are the equipment or assays you need actually available and unbooked; will your ethics committee clear this without unusual delay; can the statistical work be done with the tools and expertise available. A topic that is scientifically beautiful but needs 2,000 patients in 18 months or a CT scanner you share with oncology is not feasible, whatever its FINER score.
Can you help me if I am already stuck with a topic I do not want?
Sometimes. If the topic is approved and data collection has started, changing is usually a larger cost than finishing. If it is approved but work has not started, and the concern is substantive (the topic is not feasible, or the gap does not hold up on closer reading), we can help you make the case to your guide and the department for a revision. If the topic is fine but you have lost enthusiasm, that is a different conversation - usually better to finish and pick differently at the next stage.
You might also need
Medical Thesis & Dissertation
We support MD, MS, DNB and DM candidates through every stage of the thesis - synopsis for the ethics committee, methodology design, data analysis, chapter drafts, viva preparation.
Read more § WritingLiterature Review
Systematic, scoping and narrative reviews for medical research.
Read more § WritingResearch Synopsis & Protocol Writing
Research synopsis and research protocol writing for your institutional ethics committee (IEC or IRB), university approval and grant applications.
Read moreWhat we don't do.
No ghost-authorship
Your name, your voice, your work. We do not put our names on your thesis or paper.
No publication guarantees
Peer review is not ours to promise. We make the work stronger; the journal decides.
No fixed turnaround promises
Good research takes the time it takes. We scope honestly, not optimistically.
No shortcuts
No AI paraphrasing to game similarity checks. No plagiarism. No sentence-swapping.
Talk to us about your project.
Send over an abstract, a chapter or a rough outline of what you need. We reply within one working day with a clear scope and a fixed quote, no obligation to proceed.