Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper

 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion 
 References
Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper -
Abstract
 The abstract serves as a summary of the paper, presenting the
purpose, scope, and major findings. The title & abstract are
often all that people will read, using this information to
decide whether they want to continue. What did you
do? What are the main results? What are your
conclusions?
 a) Is the abstract intelligible? Does it…
 b) …accurately describe the objectives & results of
paper?
 c) …include data not presented in the paper?
 d) …include material that cannot be substantiated
(conclusions unsupported by results)?
 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper –
Introduction
 The introduction serves to logically present the background
information/provide context for the study.
 What is the question?
 Why is it important ?
 What are the alternative hypotheses?
 Can you observe a pattern?
 Can you explain this pattern?.
 Can you test the predictions using statistical tests?
 a) Did the authors indicate why the study was done?
 b) Is the information adequate to understand the aims &
objectives of the study?
 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper – Methods

 The methods section should be a clear chronological description of what

you did & how you did it.
 Could someone else repeat the research with the information
provided?
 a) Were methods described in sufficient detail for others to repeat
or extend the study?
 b) Were adequate references cited?
 c) If methods were modified, were modifications described?
 d) Have the authors indicated why particular procedures were
used, the potential problems of the methods used, & limitations of
their methods?
 e) Have the authors specified the statistical procedures used?
 f) Are the statistical methods appropriate?
 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper - Results

 The results section is meant to highlight trends in the data

(most often presented in figures and/or tables). Text
should compliment the tables/figures, NOT repeat
the information presented therein.
 a) Are the results appropriate for the stated
objectives?
 b) Do the results make sense?
 c) Do tables & figures clearly describe the data?
 d) Have the appropriate statistical analyses been
performed on the data? 
 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper – Discussion
 Use this section to synthesize your results & to tie
your results to the literature.
 Do not repeat your results…relate them to other
studies.
 What are the potential explanations for the
results?
 Have other studies come to similar/different
conclusions?
 How do you account for those discrepancies?
 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper – Discussion
 a) Were the objectives of the study met? If not, do
authors have an explanation as to why?
 b) Were statistical hypotheses clearly supported or
refuted?
 c) Are results discussed in relation to similar studies?
 d) Do authors indulge in needless speculation?
 e) If results are statistically significant, are they also
biologically significant?
 f) Do authors adequately interpret their data &
discuss the limitations of their study?
 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper –References

 a) Do authors cite appropriate papers for

comments made?
 b) Do authors cite their own publications
needlessly?
 Use the format of Journal of Physiology
(http://jp.physoc.org/) for your list of references,
as well as for the parenthetical notation
throughout your paper. Try to find recent
references (within the last 2 or 3 years) so that
your analysis is up to date.

 Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper –
General Tips & Suggestions
 -Outline before you write
 -Define your terms
 -Be accurate, concise, and to the point. Make sure your
paper follows a logical sequence & moves smoothly
from one thought to the next.
 -Avoid the passive voice
 -Use others as editors. suggestion :3 types of people
read the work…1) someone knowledgeable in the
field, 2) someone knowledgeable in some other
scientific discipline, and 3) your mother! CRITICISM
is OK!
Critically Read and Evaluate a Scientific
Paper

 Review Articles
 Research Articles
 Authors and Journals
 Summary
 Critically Read and Evaluate a Scientific Paper-
Research Articles

Correlation does not imply causation:

 variables (say, A and B) co-vary, does not mean that A caused B.
 It may be the case that B caused A (reverse causation),
 both A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional causality)
 a third factor (say, C) causes both A and B (third-variable
problem; common-cause variable).
An overstated discussion is a discussion that is not
motivated by the result of the study.
 Critically Read and Evaluate a Scientific Paper-Authors and
Journals

 Is the author an expert on the topic?

 Is he an respectable scientists or just a crank?
 What journal is the paper published in?
 There is a world of difference between a respected
journal that uses peer-review from a journal that no
one has heard of, lacking peer-review. There are
many different ways to check this, such as impact
factor and citation index.
 Has there been independent replication?
 Critically Read and Evaluate a Scientific
Paper-Review Articles
 A review article is a summary of the research already been
done on an area. The quality of a review article is linked to
the research it summarizes. Generally speaking, the more
well-carried out research it uses, the better.
 The key way to handle a pseudoscientists reference a review
articles is checking if the article actually says what the
person that is referencing is claiming it says. There are two
main ways to do this: (1) read the conclusion of the review
article and see if it fits or (2) read the quote given by the
person in context, to see what the author(s) really meant.
 It may be cases where none of this is true: the quote is in
context and it is not a faulty of the review article. If so, you
can go further and check the research being summarized.
 Critically Read and Evaluate a Scientific Paper-Summary

Keep in mind when critically investigating

a scientific paper:
 Who wrote it?
 What journal has it published in?
 Does the journal apply peer-review?
 Have the person citing it incorrectly characterized the
study? Taken quotes out of context?
 Does the method of the paper have serious flaws?
 Does the results support the conclusion?
 Has the results been independently replicated?
Evaluarea critica a literaturii de
specialitate – McMaster:

Clasificare dupa problema abordata:

 Descrie istoricul bolii
 Descrie cauzele imbolnavirii
 Rezultate terapeutice
 Valoarea testelor diagnostice
 Evaluarea critica a literaturii de
specialitate – Sacket

1. Informatiile sunt corecte/utile? (din abstract)

2. Carei populatii i se adreseaza?
3. Ce tip de studiu este?
4. Care sunt rezultatele:
1. Prezentare
2. Prelucrare
3. Interpretare
5. Care sunt concluziile? Corectitudine/ aplicabilitate
 Evaluarea critica a literaturii de
specialitate – Sacket
Populatia de baza
Carei populatii i se adreseaza?
1. Definirea populatiei de baza
2. A fost realizata esantionarea? Randomizata?
3. Volumul esantionului e suficient? (precizia
studiului)
4. Exista erori /distorsiuni? (biases)