How to do journal critique

1. Critically
Appraising a
Journal Article
NUR ISLAMI MOHD FAHMI TENG

2. QUIZ!
 Choose mode - Kahoot!

3. Learning outcome
 Understanding the process of article critique
 Student should be able to critique an article

4. Benefits of Critical Appraisal
 An analytical summary and evaluation of a research
study
 Standard approach: recognize important information
 Standard format: easily digested, a quick read
 Usable by professionals in busy practices as
summarized, synthesized evidence

5. Anatomy of a Scientific
Article
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion

6. Always Ask Six Things
 As you go through the anatomy of the article, you will always ask six
things that will correspond to the various parts of the article.

7. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look
at commentary/discussion)

8. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look
at commentary/discussion)

9. 1. What is the Clinical Question?
What type of question is being asked in
your article?
This is typically found in the Introduction

10. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look
at commentary/discussion)

11. 2. Why was the question asked?
What did the author/s want to know? This is typically found in the Introduction

12. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look
at commentary/discussion)

13. 3. What did they
do? (Methods)
YOU LOOK FOR THE VALIDITY OF THE STUDY BY CHECKING
THE WAY IT WAS CARRIED OUT.

14. 3. What did they do?
(Methods)
 Validity
 The degree to which the results of a study are likely to
be true, believable and free of bias.

15. 3. What did they do?
(Methods)
 Bias
 Deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or
processes leading to such deviation.
 Recall
 Selection
 Cultural
 Conflict of Interest
 Economic
 Lead Time
 Length Time

16. Types of Studies
 There are various types of studies for evaluating the
answer to your question

17. TYPES OF STUDIES

18. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look
at commentary/discussion)

19. 4. What was the answer?
(Results)
 What was the consequence, effect, or outcome of the
study?
 This is found in the Results

20. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look at
commentary/discussion)

21. 5. What did they say about the
answer? Conclusion
 What was the decision reached?
 This is typically in the Conclusion

22. Always Ask Six Things
 1) What is the clinical question?
 2) Why was the question asked?
 3) What did they do? Methods
 4) What was the answer ? Results
 5) What did they say about the answer? Conclusion
 6) What do I do with this information? Is this study of significant
enough quality in method to change my practice one way or the
other? - (Studies done different ways mean different things) (Look
at commentary/discussion)

23. 6. What do I do with this
information?
 Is this study of significant enough quality in method to change my
practice one way or the other?
 Look at the commentary and discussion that has been provided by
the author/s in the journal article.

24. Where to find Commentary
 PubMed
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?otool=musmlib
 Google Scholar
 http://scholar.google.com.medlib-proxy.mercer.edu/
 ACP Journal Club
 http://annals.org.medlib-proxy.mercer.edu/journalclub.aspx
 Cochrane Journal Club
 http://www.cochranejournalclub.com.medlib-proxy.mercer.edu/
 Evidence Based Medicine
 http://ebm.bmj.com.medlib-proxy.mercer.edu/

26. ORGANISING THE BODY OF
YOUR REVIEW
 A well organised research article has readily
identifiable sections including the
 introduction,
 methodology,
 results (findings), and
 discussion (conclusions and recommendations).

27. INTRODUCTION
 Does the author clearly define a research problem or
topic?
 Is its significance explained? Are core issues or
research variables identified?
 Is specialized terminology usefully defined?
 Does the author provide an adequate literature
review?
 Does it discuss current research on the problem, and
help to situate the author’s own research?
 Are the research objectives clearly stated? Are
hypotheses or specific research questions identified?

28. METHODOLOGY
 Does the author clearly identify the research
methodology and any associated limitations of the
research design?
 Are participants described, including the method of
sample selection if appropriate?
 Are instruments adequately described, including issues
of appropriateness, validity and reliability?
 Do any evident biases or ethical considerations arise in
relation to the methodology?
 Are the methods for measuring results clearly
explained and appropriate?

29. RESULTS
 Are the author's major findings clearly presented?
 Do they adequately address the stated research
objectives?
 Are supporting data presented? Are tables, graphs or
figures helpful and well integrated with the text?

30. DISCUSSIONS
 Do the research results validate the author’s
conclusions and/or recommendations?
 Are alternative conclusions and/or limitations of the
research considered?
 Is there discussion of any variance between the
author’s research and prior research findings?
 Does the author’s research suggest any direction for
further research?
 Is the practical or theoretical significance of the
research emphasized?
 Does the author recommend the revision of theory or
practice in the field?

31. CONCLUDING A REVIEW
 Is the research timely and worthwhile?
 Is the research design appropriately inclusive and/or sensitive to the
cultural context?
 Are you aware of any significant omissions or errors that might affect
the validity or reliability of the research?
 Are the results original and significant?
 Does the author provide fresh insight or stimulate needed discussion
in the field?
 Is the article well structured?
 Are the sections of appropriate length?
 Do the author’s style and language maintain interest and clarity?
 Is the presentation unbiased, objective and reasonable?
 Is the author respectful of participants and the work of other
researchers?