Menu

24/09/2026

Translational research: when a question becomes knowledge for the patient

For Dr. Diego Delgado, Head of R&D at Hospital MiKS, research in a hospital means maintaining a constant connection between what happens in the laboratory, what takes place in clinical practice, and the real needs of patients.

Research questions do not always arise at a laboratory bench or behind a desk. Sometimes they emerge in the clinic, in the operating room, when a patient does not respond as expected, or when a treatment appears to work but we still want to understand the mechanisms underlying its effects. 

From the lab to the patient

Translating an idea from basic research into clinical practice requires more than good research projects. For Dr. Diego Delgado, one of the key elements is communication between laboratory researchers, clinical investigators, and healthcare professionals.

When these areas are connected, research questions can be formulated from the outset with patients’ needs in mind. This makes it possible to design both preclinical projects and clinical studies around specific clinical problems and to move in a more structured way from an initial hypothesis toward potential clinical application.

Translational research sits precisely at this point of connection: taking knowledge generated in the laboratory and turning it into questions that can be addressed in the clinical setting, while also bringing questions that emerge from patient care back to the laboratory to inform new lines of research.

These are not, therefore, two independent worlds, but part of a continuous process in which each informs and drives the other.

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP): It Is no longer just about whether it works

One of the research areas that best illustrates this process is the work carried out over many years on platelet-rich plasma (PRP).

The growing body of evidence has provided an increasingly detailed understanding of its biological effects and therapeutic potential. But according to Dr. Delgado, one of the main challenges today is understanding the considerable variability encompassed by the term PRP.

Platelet concentration, the presence or absence of leukocytes, preparation methods, the volume administered, and dosing frequency can all vary between treatments and studies. As a result, comparing findings from studies using different PRP preparations can be challenging and may contribute to difficulties in interpreting the overall evidence.

The challenge today, therefore, goes beyond answering the seemingly straightforward question: “Does PRP work?”

Research needs to address much more specific questions: which product, for which patient, and at what dose?

Moving in this direction requires systematic data collection, careful treatment documentation, and precise reporting of what is being used and how it is administered. Only then can results be meaningfully compared and we can better understand which patients may benefit from each therapeutic strategy, moving toward more personalized care.

Dr. Diego Delgado in front of the R&D lab at Hospital MiKS

From the hypothesis to evidence

In research, a good idea is only the starting point. Turning it into a therapeutic option requires demonstrating its efficacy while also establishing its safety and potential risks.

Clinical trials provide a controlled framework for evaluating the efficacy and safety of a treatment. In a hospital setting, they also serve another important purpose: determining whether observations made in routine clinical practice hold up when they are examined systematically.

“Seeing your patients improve can be a misleading impression.”

A patient may improve for many different reasons: the passage of time, the natural course of the condition, the selection of patients who were more likely to improve, or even a placebo effect. A well-designed clinical trial helps reduce these sources of uncertainty and provides a more reliable basis for determining whether a treatment is actually effective.

Scientific publication is another essential part of this process. Sharing results allows researchers and specialists to scrutinize and reproduce findings, helping the field move forward. It is also how new knowledge and advances can ultimately reach a wider population of patients.

And it is equally important to publish when the results are not what was expected.

“If you only report the positive findings, the literature starts to look better than it really is.”

Negative results, when they come from well-conducted studies, also contribute to scientific knowledge. They can help rule out hypotheses, prevent other research groups from pursuing approaches that are unlikely to work, and, above all, help distinguish a therapeutic option supported by scientific evidence from a passing trend.

The value of unexpected findings

Research rarely follows a straight path.

A project may begin with one hypothesis and ultimately answer a completely different question. Sometimes the results fail to confirm what was expected. In other cases, they force researchers to rethink the project and start again.

“The fact that most projects don’t end up where you thought they would doesn’t mean they weren’t worthwhile.”

Negative results can also be informative when the research has been conducted rigorously. The real challenge, Dr. Delgado explains, may be accepting that a hypothesis that has been investigated for years does not hold up.

There is then a temptation to interpret the data in ways that support what you hoped to find. This is why having other researchers and professionals challenge your findings is so important.

“It is very useful to have people around you who are willing to challenge you.”

Research also requires patience. Years may pass between an initial idea and the availability of a treatment, and much of that process takes place far from the headlines and immediate results.

The advances that eventually attract attention are often just the visible part of a much longer process: questions, hypotheses, experiments, unexpected findings, projects that are redesigned, and countless hours spent determining whether an idea really holds up.

Researching with the future in mind

In a hospital, research is not only about looking for the next major breakthrough. It also means asking questions about treatments that are already being used, understanding why they work for some patients and not others, and generating evidence that can support increasingly precise clinical decisions.

For Dr. Diego Delgado, this connection between research and patient care is essential: questions can arise at the patient’s side, find answers in the laboratory, and then return to clinical practice.

It is a slow process, but it is also one of the ways innovation can move beyond being a promise and, when supported by evidence, become knowledge that is useful in clinical practice.

Because research is not only about finding answers. It is also about learning how to ask better questions.