1 / 19

How to Critically Review an Article

How to Critically Review an Article. April 2012 Singh M SETPRAS www.setpras.org. Learning Objectives. Understand what a critical review is Understand the different types of articles Be able to perform a critical review of a published article. Introduction.

ivor-hale
Télécharger la présentation

How to Critically Review an Article

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How to Critically Review an Article April 2012 Singh M SETPRAS www.setpras.org

  2. Learning Objectives • Understand what a critical review is • Understand the different types of articles • Be able to perform a critical review of a published article

  3. Introduction • A critical review involves understanding, evaluating and then analysing all aspects of an article • The structure of an article is broadly similar, although it is worth considering the different types of articles commonly published

  4. Introduction • Article types: • Original research article • This category includes studies and are what most people think of when they talk about a scientific article • Usually up to 3000 words in length • Typically, anywhere from 5-50 references, depending on subject • Review article • This is a comprehensive review on a particular subject. It summarises available evidence and presents information in a balanced way • Usually up to 5000 words in length • Typically, anywhere from 10-100 reference, depending on subject • Case report • These are short articles that demonstrate an interesting aspect of a case, illustrated by an example • Usually up to 1500 words • Typically, anywhere from 3-10 references

  5. Introduction • Scientific articles: • Most follow same basic pattern: • Abstract • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion • References • (Figures and Tables, if relevant)

  6. Critical Appraisal • Stages of critical appraisal: • 1) Read and re-read the article • 2) Understand what was done and why • 3) Analyse the results and discussion • 4) Ask questions about the information presented

  7. Critical Appraisal • Questions to be asking yourself about the article are best structured in the same way as the article • Initially it is best to ask some general questions • Then look at more detail into what they did and how and why

  8. Critical Appraisal • The Journal • 1) What journal was it published in? • 2) Why this journal? Is it appropriate for the subject of the article? • 3) Is the journal peer-reviewed? • 4) What is the journal impact factor?

  9. Critical Appraisal • The Authors • 1) How many authors are there? • 2) Are they known for work in this field? • 3) Which institution do they work in? • 4) What is that institution known for? • 5) Does it produce a lot of research publications?

  10. Critical Appraisal • The Article • 1) What kind of article is it? • 2) Was the article interesting? • 3) Did the article provide new, previously unknown information? • 4) Was the article well presented?

  11. Critical Appraisal • Specific analysis of a scientific article: • Title, Introduction and Abstract: • 1) Is the title of the article suitable for what was done? • 2) Does the abstract give an accurate summary of the article? • 3) Were the aims and objectives of the study clearly outlined? • 4) Did the introduction provide enough information as to what has led to this study? • 5) Was the study well designed to be able to answer the aims and objectives?

  12. Critical Appraisal • Materials and Methods: • 1) Are the methods used appropriate? • 2) Was the population looked at correct? • 3) Were interventions randomised? • 4) Were there any controls? • 5) Are the demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria defined? • 6) Were there sufficient numbers to be able to answer the research question?

  13. Critical Appraisal • Results: • 1) Were the results well presented? • 2) Were all results provided or were some excluded? • 3) Are the results presented in a way to be able to answer the original research questions? • 4) Were the results presented in an easy to comprehend way? E.g. figures, tables etc. • 5) Are the results valid?

  14. Critical Appraisal • Statistics: • 1) Were the statistical tests used appropriate? • 2) Have they performed statistical tests on the correct results?

  15. Critical Appraisal • Discussion: • 1) Were all the results discussed? • 2) Were the findings related to the original hypothesis? • 3) Were the author’s interpretations of the results correct? • 4) Did the authors discuss the drawbacks/limitations of the study? • 5) Do you agree with their conclusions?

  16. Critical Appraisal • References: • 1) Were there an appropriate number of references? • 2) Were the references up to date? • 3) Were the references used appropriately within the article? • 4) Have the authors self-referenced?

  17. Critical Appraisal • Other: • 1) Were any conflicts of interest declared? • 2) Were any sources of funding declared?

  18. Conclusions • When critically reviewing an article there are many questions to be asked • Asking these questions will help provide a better understanding of the article and its results • This is a skill useful at all levels of training • We hope you will consider submitting critical reviews of articles you may have recently read, please see our submissions page for further details

  19. Further Information • http://www.setpras.org/critical-reviews.html • http://www.setpras.org/submit.html • submissions@setpras.org

More Related