Critical appraisal of the literature Michael Ferenczi Head of Year 4 Head of Molecular Medicine Section, National Heart and Lung Institute.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Critical Reading Strategies: Overview of Research Process
Advertisements

What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
Protocol Development.
Dissertation Writing.
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing
Writing for Publication
Writing an original research paper Part one: Important considerations
8. Evidence-based management Step 3: Critical appraisal of studies
ROLE OF THE REVIEWER ESSA KAZIM. ROLE OF THE REVIEWER Refereeing or peer-review has the advantages of: –Identification of suitable scientific material.
The material was supported by an educational grant from Ferring How to Write a Scientific Article Nikolaos P. Polyzos M.D. PhD.
Critical Appraisal Dr Samira Alsenany Dr SA 2012 Dr Samira alsenany.
Evidenced Based Practice; Systematic Reviews; Critiquing Research
How does the process work? Submissions in 2007 (n=13,043) Perspectives.
Advanced Technical Communication
How to write a publishable qualitative article
Critical Appraisal of an Article by Dr. I. Selvaraj B. SC. ,M. B. B. S
Reading Science Critically Debi A. LaPlante, PhD Associate Director, Division on Addictions.
How to Write a Scientific Paper Hann-Chorng Kuo Department of Urology Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital.
Writing a Research Proposal
Their contribution to knowledge Morag Heirs. Research Fellow Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York PhD student (NIHR funded) Health.
How to Critically Review an Article
WRITING A REVIEW ARTICLE STRUCTURE AND STYLE OF A REVIEW ARTICLE Saleem Saaed Qader MBChB, MD, MSc, MPH, PhD, SBGS Consultant General Surgeon, Lecturer.
Systematic Approaches to Literature Reviewing. The Literature Review ? “Literature reviews …… introduce a topic, summarise the main issues and provide.
Research Report Chapter 15. Research Report – APA Format Title Page Running head – BRIEF TITLE, positioned in upper left corner of no more than 50 characters.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
Introduction to writing scientific papers Gaby van Dijk.
Chris Luszczek Biol2050 week 3 Lecture September 23, 2013.
How to Write a Critical Review of Research Articles
Systematic Reviews.
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Introduction to Systematic Reviews Afshin Ostovar Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Bushehr, /9/20151.
 Remember, it is important that you should not believe everything you read.  Moreover, you should be able to reject or accept information based on the.
Appraising Randomized Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews October 12, 2012 Mary H. Palmer, PhD, RN, C, FAAN, AGSF University of North Carolina at Chapel.
Systematic reviews to support public policy: An overview Jeff Valentine University of Louisville AfrEA – NONIE – 3ie Cairo.
Evidence-Based Medicine Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department of.
Critical Appraisal of the Scientific Literature
How to write a scientific article Nikolaos P. Polyzos M.D. PhD.
EBM Conference (Day 2). Funding Bias “He who pays, Calls the Tune” Some Facts (& Myths) Is industry research more likely to be published No Is industry.
Original Research Publication Moderator: Dr. Sai Kumar. P Members: 1.Dr.Sembulingam 2. Dr. Mathangi. D.C 3. Dr. Maruthi. K.N. 4. Dr. Priscilla Johnson.
Project Thesis 2006 Adapted from Flor Siperstein Lecture 2004 Class CLASS Project Thesis (Fundamental Research Tools)
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
1 CH450 CHEMICAL WRITING AND PRESENTATION Alan Buglass.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :呂宥達 Date : 2005/10/27.
BY DR. HAMZA ABDULGHANI MBBS,DPHC,ABFM,FRCGP (UK), Diploma MedED(UK) Associate Professor DEPT. OF MEDICAL EDUCATION COLLEGE OF MEDICINE June 2012 Writing.
Principals of Research Writing. What is Research Writing? Process of communicating your research  Before the fact  Research proposal  After the fact.
LITERATURE REVIEW ARCHELLE JANE C. CALLEJO, PTRP,MSPH.
Scope of the Journal The International Journal of Sports Medicine (IJSM) provides a forum for the publication of papers dealing with basic or applied information.
Unit 11: Evaluating Epidemiologic Literature. Unit 11 Learning Objectives: 1. Recognize uniform guidelines used in preparing manuscripts for publication.
The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre In Collaboration with Reyada Training & Management Consultancy, Dubai-UAE Cochrane Collaboration and Systematic.
Sept 17, 2007C.Watters 1 Reviewing Published Articles.
Source: S. Unchern,  Research is not been completed until the results have been published.  “You don’t write because you want to say something,
Advanced Research Skills in Psychotherapy 1 NS604 ‘Doing your Literature Review: Structure and Content Issues’ Dr. Gemma Kiernan Room 219-School of Nursing.
Systematic Reviews of Evidence Introduction & Applications AEA 2014 Claire Morgan Senior Research Associate, WestEd.
Scientific Literature and Communication Unit 3- Investigative Biology b) Scientific literature and communication.
Dr.V.Jaiganesh Professor
Writing Scientific Research Paper
Critically Appraising a Medical Journal Article
First glance Is this manuscript of interest to readers of the journal?
Critical Reading of Clinical Study Results
Reading Research Papers-A Basic Guide to Critical Analysis
The main parts of a dissertation
What the Editors want to see!
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم.
Conducting a STEM Literature Review
Publication of research
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Presentation transcript:

Critical appraisal of the literature Michael Ferenczi Head of Year 4 Head of Molecular Medicine Section, National Heart and Lung Institute

Trends in MEDLINE journal articles, 1978–2001 (n = 8,123,392)

Appraisal: increases the effectiveness of reading by enabling you to exclude research studies that are too poorly designed to inform practice. This frees time to concentrate on a more systematic evaluation of those studies that cross the quality threshold and then to extract their salient points.

Why is this necessary? So much information is now easily available, or forced upon us, that it is not possible to read or study it all. Selection is required Criteria for selection need to be established

Selection criteria: * Systematically evaluating scientific literature. * Sifting the "wheat" from the "chaff" when your literature search harvests conflicting studies * Filtering out original research or meta-analyses which are methodologically sound * Deciding which papers are going to be relevant * Breaking down barriers between research (pure science) and practice (applied science) (e.g. in medical practice) * Supporting the development of Evidence Based Practice (EBP).

Selection criteria: 1. Relevance - the topic of the study, how important it is to you at the moment, the similarity of the setting to the one you work in, the level at which it is written, the professional group or discipline for whom it is written, etc. 2. Intrinsic factors - (i.e. those factors that relate to the study itself) - the appropriateness of the study design to the question being asked, the suitability of the sample, the methods used to recruit the sample, methods used to obtain the results, etc. 3. Extrinsic factors - (i.e those external factors which are assumed (but are not necessarily) to be associated with the quality of the article) - who wrote it, where they work, what their job or qualifications are, whether you have heard of them, who paid for the study, which journal it is written in, whether they have written on the subject before, etc. Are extrinsic factors acceptable, or are they too subjective?

Evidence Based Medicine Working Group A. Are the results of the study valid? [Validity] Are the conclusions justified by the description of the methodology and the findings? Is the methodology sound, have the authors made reasonable assumptions, are there confounding factors they have failed to consider? If they are using a sample, have they selected this to avoid bias? B. What are the results? [Reliability] What are the findings of this article? Is the effect demonstrated large enough to be of significance? How confident are we that the results fall within the bounds of reasonable expectation and are not fluke? C. Will the results help locally? [Applicability] Are the problems I deal with sufficiently like those in the study to extrapolate the findings? Can I generalise from this study to my work place, my experimental conditions, my patients?

Appraisal of reviews 1. Does the review set out to answer a precise question? (i.e. it is something more scientific than an attempt to gather everything written about malaria). 2. Has a thorough search been carried out? Anything missing? - Medline and other relevant bibliographic database - Cochrane controlled clinical trials register - Foreign language literature - "Grey literature" (unpublished or unindexed reports: theses, conference proceedings, internal reports, pharmaceutical industry) - Reference chaining from any articles found - Personal approaches to experts in the field - Hand searches of the relevant specialised journals. - (for meta-analysis, it may be important to track down the raw study data for re- analysis, rather than the final report) 3. Have the authors included explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies, taking account of the patients in the studies, the interventions used, the outcomes recorded and the methodology? 4. Are results applicable locally

Evidence Based Medicine Working Group A. Are the results of the study valid? [Validity] Are the conclusions justified by the description of the methodology and the findings? Is the methodology sound, have the authors made reasonable assumptions, are there confounding factors they have failed to consider? If they are using a sample, have they selected this to avoid bias? B. What are the results? [Reliability] What are the findings of this article? Is the effect demonstrated large enough to be of significance? How confident are we that the results fall within the bounds of reasonable expectation and are not fluke? C. Will the results help locally? [Applicability] Are the problems I deal with sufficiently like those in the study to extrapolate the findings? Can I generalise from this study to my work place, my experimental conditions, my patients?

Evaluating websites Do not believe all what you read – be critical The URL.com,.biz and.co addresses suggest commercial bodies;.org suggests non-profit making sites;.edu and.ac suggest academic institutions;.gov,.doh etc. suggest government departments.

What is a paper? A critical report of a scientific study.

What factors will determine where you publish? Selecting a journal Is the work suitable for a general or specialist audience? –Which journal attract this readership –Impact factor of the journal The peer review process

The Impact Factor More than 6000 journals in Medicine and Life Sciences. Journals are ranked according to the number of citations for each article in the most recent 3 years The Impact factor, often abbreviated IF, is a measure of the citations to science and social science journals. It is frequently used as a proxy for the importance of a journal to its field. It is the average number of citations in a year given to those papers in a journal that were published during the two preceding years

The Impact Factor Abbreviated Journal Title ISSN Total Cites Impact Factor Immediacy Index Articles Cite Half-life

WHO CONTROLS WHAT IS PUBLISHED? The peer review system Editor: selects expert referees Referees: critically appraise the work and report back to the editor Editor: evaluates the referees’ reports and makes a decision based on Quality of the work Importance of the work and potential for citation Priority for publication.

Reading and analysing a scientific paper

What does a paper comprise? Abstract/Summary Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References Acknowledgements

Approaching the paper Title and short title: these will give and indication of the broad area Abstract/summary: this is the overview. Ask yourself - is this of interest to me?

What is it? Background information which leads up to the hypothesis to be tested. Questions to ask Is it a fair reflection of the literature? Is the hypothesis sound? The introduction

Materials and Methods What should it include? A clear description of the design of the study and the methods used. Questions to ask Is the fundamental design appropriate? Are the methods suitable? Could you repeat the study with the information provided?

Results What should this section include? A clear description of the data, drawing attention to points of significance Presentation of the data as figures. Questions to ask Are the data expressed clearly? Are the appropriate control data included? Have the data been tested statistically? Do the data show what the authors claim?

Discussion This section should review the data critically in the light of the current literature limitations posed by the design of the study and the methods used.

Discussion Questions to ask Do the data justify the interpretations? Are there other possible interpretations? Are relevant published findings considered? Are the limitations of the study considered? Is the work a significant advance?

References Do these reflect fairly and appropriately the current state of knowledge? Is important work ignored (e.g. from competitors)? Is my relevant work cited?

Presentation Is the quality of English good enough Is the text clear and succinct Is the data presentation optimal: number and clarity of figures, and tables