How to write a critical review of a scientific journal article

Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and those in the tables? This is not always easy, especially if I discover what I think is a serious flaw in the manuscript. Was there a careful power calculation before the study started?

The references in review articles point the reader towards more detailed information on the topic concerned. Use the answers to the questions in the section Analyze the Text to develop the summary.

Does the study reveal what the researcher intended? I try to write my reviews in a tone and form that I could put my name to, even though reviews in my field are usually double-blind and not signed. Are the geographical area, the population, the study period including duration of follow-upand the intervals between investigations described in detail?

We can confront two problems while we are using data from researches in order to answer certain questions.

Any potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, must be revealed in full Is the statistical analysis sound and justified? Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams.

The inclusion of nonsignificant results contributes to the credibility of the study. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to perform a meta-analysis.

How to review a paper

The following checklist may assist you: Was the course of the study poorly or inadequately monitored missing values, confounding, time infringements? Is all the material organized under the appropriate headings? I try to link any criticism I have either to a page number or a quotation from the manuscript to ensure that my argument is understood.

To what extent does the Discussion place the findings in a wider context and achieve a balance between interpretation and useful speculation versus tedious waffling? At this first stage, I try to be as open-minded as I can. Does the title or legend accurately describe the content? If for some reason the design is unacceptable, then so is the article, regardless of how the data were analyzed 7.

If, for example, the method of randomization is not specified, as is often the case 8one ought not to assume that randomization took place at all 7. Was the number of cases too small and thus the statistical power of the study too low? It should not be forgotten that statistical significance, i.

Use the answers to the questions in Evaluate the Text to develop this section. Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity and economy of expression addressed? This is necessary to keep medical knowledge up to date and to ensure optimal patient care. You are expected to read the article carefully, analyse it, and evaluate the quality and originality of the research, as well as its relevance and presentation.

When clinicians want to update their knowledge and generate guidelines about a topic, they frequently use reviews as a starting point.

I like to use two sittings, even when I am pretty sure of my conclusions. The reader has to appreciate the difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance in order to evaluate the results properly. However, if the mechanism being tested does not really provide new knowledge, or if the method and study design are of insufficient quality, then my hopes for a manuscript are rather low.

In addition to considering their overall quality, sometimes figures raise questions about the methods used to collect or analyze the data, or they fail to support a finding reported in the paper and warrant further clarification.

Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regressionif done, indicating which were pre-specified. The accuracy of a method, i. Do the hypotheses follow logically from previous work?

What conclusions can be drawn from the results? Narrative reviews are written in an easily readable format, and allow consideration of the subject matter within a large spectrum.

How to write a review article?

Another common mistake is writing an unfocused review that is lost in the details. Regular perusal of specialist journals is an obvious way of keeping up to date. The findings should first be formulated descriptively, stating statistical parameters such as case numbers, mean values, measures of variation, and confidence intervals.

A second, analytic subsection describes the relationship between characteristics, or estimates the effect of a risk factor, say smoking behavior, on a dependent variable, say lung cancer, and may include calculation of appropriate statistical models.Overall!this!article!isn’tvery!straightforward!in!the!beginning!and!it’s!notuntil!the!

Critical Appraisal of Scientific Articles

Journal Article Critique Example Author: Political Science / Public Administration Created Date: 1/5/ AM. Using a Scientific Journal Article to Write a Critical Review Writing a critical review of a journal article can help to improve your research skills.

By assessing the work of others, you develop skills as a critical reader and become familiar with the types of evaluation criteria that will be applied to research in your field and thus your own research. Scientific Article Review Definition of Genre Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article.

Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. A critical review of a journal article is an evaluation of an article's strengths, weaknesses and validity. It is used to inform readers of an article's value through. Feb 13,  · Before starting a scientific article, the reader must be clear as to his/her intentions.

For quick information on a given subject, he/she is advised to read a recent review of some sort, whether a (simple) review article, a systematic review, or a meta-analysis. Writing Critical Reviews What is a Critical Review of a Journal Article? A critical review of a journal article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an article's ideas and content.

How to write a critical review of a scientific journal article
Rated 4/5 based on 51 review