Critical Analysis of Clinical Research Articles: A Guide for Evaluation
Received Date: Dec 21, 2015 / Accepted Date: Dec 28, 2015 / Published Date: Jan 04, 2016
Critical evaluation is used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an article, in order to evaluate the usefulness and validity of research results. The components of the critical appraisal are the appropriateness of the study design for the research question and a thorough evaluation of important methodological characteristics of this study, the adequacy of the used statistical methods and their subsequent interpretation, potential conflicts of interest and the relevance of research for clinical practice. This review steps for review and also helps in identifying highquality studies that can guide clinical practice safely and evidence-based.
Keywords: Critical appraisal; Clinical practice; Decision making; Evidence-based practice
Health professionals need to apply the results of scientific research according to the individual circumstances of the patients, this should be able to select and evaluate the scientific literature that is relevant to their field, should understand the implications of the research for patients individual, stimulate own preferences of patients and develop an appropriate management plan based on the combination of this information [1-8].
|Title||Is the title clear, accurate and concise, avoiding unnecessary words and without abbreviations?|
|Abstract||Does the abstract contain what was done, how it was done, the results and their implications?|
|Definition of The Study Theme||Has the problem been properly defined?
Is problem linked to the article already published on the subject?
Is the research goal described and correctly defined?
|Research Design||Is the study controlled? What is the hypothesis? Is the hypothesis clearly defined?
What is the kind of study?
Is the type of study appropriate to achieve the objective of the investigation? Are there inherent
limitations in the employed method that may have affected the results?
Is the method correctly applied?
Were the ethical aspects properly conducted?
|Sample||Is the target group appropriate to achieve the objective?
How was done the sample selection?
Was the sample selected at random? Was it somehow flawed?
In the case of experimental study or clinical trial, was there randomization?
Was the sample size discussed?
Was the sample size enough for the purposes of this study?
|Gauging of Information||Are the used indicators and procedures the most appropriates?
Have the variables been properly set?
Is the effect evaluation objective and proper in relation to the study goals? Is the response variable
properly used to measure the effect?
Are there preparation (pre-test) and data collection instruments (questionnaires, appliances)?
Was there training of collectors and examiners?
What is the reliability of the information?
May the observation process have affected the outcome?
In the case of experimental study, was there adherence to treatment and did the study use double-blind
|Statistical Analysis||Do the authors correctly showed the sample calculation?
Were the employed statistical techniques adequate to the problem?
Were they used in the right way?
Were the confidence intervals calculated and the accuracy of the results informed?
|Internal Consistency of Results||Were figures and tables added up correctly?
Are the totals in a table the same as the totals in another table? If they are different, are there
explanations for the differences?
|Interpretation of Results||Is there coherence between the methods of the original protocol and end methods actually used?
May the differences be simply due to "chance" - type I error - or false positive results? What was the alpha used?
If there were no statistically significant differences, can a Type II error (false negative) be present?
What was the employed beta? What was the study power (1-beta)?
Where there multiple comparisons (i.e., multiple hypotheses) to test various effects? If so, has the alpha for each hypothesis been a priori fixed?
Can the differences be attributed to a selection bias (i.e., the one that occurs in the sample composition or the constitution of study groups)?
Was there loss of results in the follow-up? What was the non-response rate?
In the case of experimental study, Hawthorne or placebo effects could explain the results? Was there co-intervention or contamination?
Can the differences be attributed to measurement bias (i.e., the one which focuses on how to obtain the data)?
Can the differences be attributed to confounding bias (i.e., the ones that can be explained by other factors such as age, gender or other confounding variable), due to differences in the composition of the groups? In other words, were the techniques to control the confounding variables properly used?
Are the results discussed and compared with those of previous studies?
Can the results be generalized to different populations in relation to the population here studied?
For what kind of populations would you apply the results?
Does the study change your practice?
|Conclusions||Are the conclusions justified when compared to the presented results?
Are there conclusions not based on study data?
Have the authors commented about the study limitations?
Have the authors identified possible defects, estimated their magnitude and pointed out their likely implications?
Are the findings relevant to the problem and to the study objectives?
|Style||Is the style clear and direct, without unnecessary repetition?
Are the use of technical terms and the language in general correct?
|Bibliographic References||Are they current and timely?
Are they presented in the right way?
|Conflicts of Interest||Are there any conflicts of interest?|
Table 1: Critical appraisal of bias in systematic reviews.
Use of this guide may assist in the evaluation of the studies and their incorporation into clinical practice.
- Young JA, Solomon MJ (2009) How to Critically Appraise an Article. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 6: 82-91.
- Glasziou PP (2008) Information overload: what's behind it, what's beyond it? Med J Aust 189: 84-85.
- Guyatt G, Rennie D (2002) Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: a Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. Chicago: American Medical Association.
- Greenhalgh T (2000) How to Read a Paper: the Basics of Evidence-based Medicine. London: Blackwell Medicine Books.
- Hill A, Spittlehouse C (2001) What is critical appraisal. Evidence-based Medicine 3: 1-8
- National Health and Medical Research Council (2000). How to Review the Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature, Canberra. NHMRC.
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2002). Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence? Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 47, Rockville.
- Heller RF, Verma A, Gemmell I, Harrison R, Hart J, et al. (2008) Critical appraisal for public health: a new checklist. Public Health 122: 92-98.
- Parkes J, Hyde C, Deeks J, Milne R (2005) Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3: Cd001270.
- du Prel JB, Röhrig B, Blettner M (2009) Critical appraisal of scientific articles: part 1 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106: 100-105.
- Röhrig B, du Prel JB, Blettner M (2009) Study design in medical research: part 2 of a series on the evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106: 184-189.
- du Prel JB, Hommel G, Röhrig B, Blettner M (2009) Confidence interval or p-value?: part 4 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106: 335-339.
- Röhrig B, du Prel JB, Wachtlin D, Kwiecien R, Blettner M (2010) Sample size calculation in clinical trials: part 13 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 552-556.
- du Prel JB, Röhrig B, Hommel G, Blettner M (2010) Choosing statistical tests: part 12 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 343-348.
- Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM (2010) Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: part III. Am J Nurs 110: 43-45.
- Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM (2010) Evidence-based practice, step by step: critical appraisal of the evidence: part II: digging deeper--examining the "keeper" studies. Am J Nurs 110: 41-48.
- Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM (2010) Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: part I. Am J Nurs 110: 47-52.
- Vaz Carneiro A (2008) Critical appraise of systematic reviews in vascular surgery. A practical example. Rev Port Cir Cardiotorac Vasc 15: 167-173.
- Gibson CJ (2008) Critical appraisal: a template to evaluate scientific literature. Dent Update 35: 414-417.
- Cardarelli R, Oberdorfer JR (2007) Evidence-based medicine, part 5. An introduction to critical appraisal of articles on prognosis. J Am Osteopath Assoc 107: 315-319.
- Cardarelli R, Seater MM (2007) Evidence-based medicine, part 4. An introduction to critical appraisal of articles on harm. J Am Osteopath Assoc 107: 310-314.
- Schranz DA, Dunn MA (2007) Evidence-based medicine, part 3. An introduction to critical appraisal of articleson diagnosis. J Am Osteopath Assoc 107: 304-309.
- Cardarelli R, Virgilio RF, Taylor L (2007) Evidence-based medicine, part 2. An introduction to critical appraisal of articleson therapy. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 107: 299-303.
- Akobeng AK (2005) Principles of evidence based medicine. Arch Dis Child 90: 837-840.
- Urschel JD (2005) How to analyze an article. World J Surg 29: 557-560.
- Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C (2005) Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg 241: 450-459.
- Nobre MR, Bernardo WM, Jatene FB (2004) Evidence based clinical practice. Part III Critical appraisal of clinical research. Rev Assoc Med
Bras 50: 221-228.
Citation: Roever L, Resende ES, Diniz ALD, Penha-Silva N, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. (2015) Critical Analysis of Clinical Research Articles: A Guide for Evaluation. Evidence Based Medicine and Practice 2: e116. Doi: 10.4172/2471-9919.1000e116
Copyright: © 2016 Roever L. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Share This Article
- Total views: 13440
- [From(publication date): 4-2016 - Dec 08, 2019]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views: 12723
- PDF downloads: 717