1. Using internet information critically Reading papers Presenting papers
True or false?
Using internet information critically Reading papers
Presenting papers

2. Web information: garbage and quality

3. Basic questions to a web page
Clear who wrote it?
Clear aims of site?
Does site achieve it’s aims?
Is site relevant to me?
Can info be checked?
When was site produced?
Any site is biased – how is this site biased?
Does site present you with choices opne to you?

4. 3 Full documents on your stick:
”Evaluating web pages tecniques….”
”Evaluating information found on the internet….”
”How to evaluate the credibility of a source”

5. How to Read a paper Why to Read Scientific Papers? The Content:
I need the most efficient algorithm or new techniques for my product
The Topic:
Can I get a new product out of these crazy scientists work?
The Authors:
Who are the valuable persons to hire or collaborate with?

6. Motivation…. It is cryptic
(notations, math formulas, references to other papers, )
It is hidden
(where to find good papers?)
It is complex
(theorems, lemmas, proofs, experiments, )

7. Taxonomy of Scientific Papers

8. Taxonomy of Scientific Papers

9. Taxonomy of Scientific Papers

11. Why are papers rejected?
Why were papers rejected for publication?
The study did not address an important scientific issue
The study was not original (someone else had already done the same or a similar study)
The study did not actually test the authors' hypothesis
A different type of study should have been done
Practical difficulties (in recruiting subjects, for example) led the authors to compromise on the original study protocol
The sample size was too small
The study was uncontrolled or inadequately controlled
The statistical analysis was incorrect or inappropriate
The authors drew unjustified conclusions from their data
There is a significant conflict of interest (one of the authors, or a sponsor, might benefit financially from the publication of the paper and insufficient safeguards were seen to be in place to guard against bias)
The paper is so badly written that it is incomprehensible

12. Is this what I need?
Many papers published have potentially serious methodological flaws
When deciding whether a paper is valid and relevant to you, first establish what specific question it addressed
Questions to do with drug treatment or other medical interventions should be addressed by double blind, randomised controlled trials
Questions about prognosis require longitudinal cohort studies, and those about causation require either cohort or case-control studies
Case reports, though methodologically weak, can be produced rapidly and have a place in alert policy makers imminent security/health/other threats

13. Methodological quality
The first essential question to ask about the methods section of a published paper is: was the study original?
The second is: whom is the study about?
Thirdly, was the design of the study sensible?
Fourthly, was systematic bias avoided or minimised?
Finally, was the study large enough, and continued for long enough, to make the results credible?

14. Bias
1) How were subjects selected for investigation, and how representative were they of the target population with regard to the study question?
(2) What was the response rate, and might responders and nonresponders have differed in important ways? As with the choice of the study sample, it matters only if respondents are atypical in relation to the study question.
(3) How accurately were exposure and outcome variables measured?

15. Summary: how to read a paper
What is the research question?
Is it relevant/new – based on existing knowledge/speculative?
Is it an overall clear paper
Is the methodology correct
Is the sample size/time frame correct?
Do they answer the question?
Do they interpret their results correctly?
Bias?
Strengths/weaknesses
Perspectives
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

17. Summary: how to read a paper
What is the research question?
Is it relevant/new – based on existing knowledge/speculative?
Is it an overall clear paper
Is the methodology correct
Is the sample size/time frame correct?
Do they answer the question?
Do they interpret their results correctly?
Bias suffuciently discussed?
Strengths/weaknesses
Perspectives – what would be potential consequences
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

18. Read the paper 25 minutes After the tea break
Then you will get a new assigment!

19. 4 groups 1. Title and Background/introduction
Does the title inspire? Is it catching? Too complicated?
Clear? Relevant?
Conclusion of introduction?
Does the introduction/background cover what is presented in the results section?

20. 2. Methods
Which method? Appropriate? Alternative methods? What is lacking?
Have they enough study participants?
Is it the right study participants?
Are there any drop outs that are not mentioned
Could you repeat the study based on the methods section of the paper?

21. 3. Results
How are results reported? Relevant format? Clear format? Logical sequence in presentation? Anything missing?
Are there any drop outs that are not mentioned
Does the analysis lead up to an answer? Do the results cover what is promised in the introduction/background? Do the presented analyses lead up to the discussion?

22. 4. Discussion/conclusion
Is the line of thoughts from the introduction continued in this section? Do they openly discuss bias (Other factors that could explain their finding)?
Do they argue in a clear way so that you can follow their logic?
Are there competing ways of interpreting their findings?
Are they right in their conclusion?
What would you have concluded from the discussion/results?
Is this really a new finding that moves science forward?
What are the implications of the study (new research, interventions etc.?)