Critical appraisal of an artiasdasdascle.pptx

asdasdasd

1. Dr k.r chELLAMMAL md,mrcog professor and hod Dept. Of obg BHARATH MEDICAL COLLEGE Critical appraisal of an article.

2. CRITICAL APPRAISAL "critical appraisal is a systematic process used to identify the strengths and weakness of a research article in order to assess the usefulness and validity of research findings“ "Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews are the highest levels of evidence but they are not automatically of good quality and should always be appraised critically." CRITICAL APPRAISAL

3. HIERARCHY OF STUDY DESIGN

4. What is Critical Appraisal? Application of rules of evidence to a study to assess the validity of the data, completeness of reporting, methods and procedures, conclusions, compliance with ethical standards. The rules of evidence vary with circumstances

5. PICO Introduced in 1995 by Richardson etal P : Population Patient Problem I :- Intervension C:- Comparison Control O:- Outcome

6. ABOUT THE ARTICLE - SOURCE ABOUT THE JOURNAL – TYPE PUBLISHER SECTION ISSN PEER REVIEWED OR NOT YEAR,ISSUE,VOLUME AND PAGE

7. TITLE OF THE ARTICLE -Indicates the topic and focus of the study. -Complete and meaningful -Reflex the aim and objective of study. -Gives an idea of the study population and study settings. -Idea of the design of the study

8. ABSTRACT • An Abstract is defined as an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document, without added interpretation or Criticism and without distinction as to who wrote the abstract. • It is a brief summary of the article which usually appears at the head of the article. Ideally, it should require no more than one page of text, and will typically be restricted to 200-300 words or less.

9. INFORMATIVE ABSTRACT:-  Informative abstract:- It is best for papers describing original research. It should typically contain 100-250 words. It should ideally answer the following issues. - Aim & Objectives - Methods - Results - Conclusion

10. INDICATIVE ABSTRACT:- It is used for long articles such as reviews, review of reviews, Meta analysis etc. It gives reader a general idea of the contents of the paper but little if any, idea of specific methods or results.

11. keywords • Key words or Key phrases are intended for indexing and cataloguing entries and facilitate the search from literature databases. • The key words selected should facilitate data search through search engines when explode commands are given to databases.

12. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS  • Is it structured or unstructured? • Is the abstract informative, indicative or combination of both? • Is it comprehensive in its contents? • Is it short, long, or over long? • Is it giving the gist of the whole text? • Does the information given in abstract match with what is present in detail text? • Does it contain any information which is not in the text?

13. INTRODUCTION  •The introduction and the conclusion are the two sections in any form of writing which are difficult to write and also get them right. • It should ideally introduce the literature to the reader. It should provide a context and create a rationale for the current study. • Introduction should have logically flowing sentences which create a movement from General (Background) to specific (Foreground).

14. STRUCTURE OF INTRODUCTION  •Introduction should be structured in a linear manner under three parts. Opening Body(Literature Review) Termination(Need for study/research)

15. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO INTRODUCTION  • Is the introduction meaningful? • Is it built on existing literature? • Is it logically presented? • Are there omissions of some important studies in citations? • Are the citations followed with correct references in the list of references? • Has it presented need for the study? • Has it stated research question or hypothesis?

16. METHODOLOGY -Target population -Study setting -Study population -Sampling frame -Sample frame -Study design -Blinding -Randomization -Measurement strategies and calibration -Statical analysis -Ethical approval

17. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO RESEARCH DESIGN  • Is the design appropriate for studying the research problem? • Are the results of the independent variable manipulation observable? • Does the control extraneous variables? • Does the design control for the possible threats to internal and external validity? • Is the control group truly equivalent to the experimental group except for the exposure to the experimental treatment? • What improvements could be made in the research design?

18. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO SAMPLE • Is the sample representative of the population of interest? • Is the sample size adequate for detecting difference between groups? • Are the sample groups equivalent? • Is there evidence of sampling error? • Is there evidence of sample bias?

19. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO METHODS AND MATERIALS • Are the methods appropriate? • Are the methods described in detail to allow for replication? • Are the methods in accordance with the ethical standards for protection of animal and human subjects? • What method was used to assign subjects to groups and to assign treatments to subjects? •

20. RESULTS • Tables, Charts, and Graphs are to be used appropriately to support the findings. • The first few tables provide subjective characteristics (Descriptive statistics) and the later tables should describe outcomes as measurements of dependent variables reported by the study and analytic results (Inferential statistics). •

21. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO RESULTS -Are the results presented in logical and comprehensible manner? -Are the important results presented in both tables and text matter? -Are the tables, charts, and graphs numbered properly and titled properly? -Are these tables showing descriptive as well as inferential data? -Are the tables simple and alignment of information properly done? -Are the data given in text and tables match or tally with each other? -Are the results based on aim and Objectives of the study? •

22. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO DISCUSSION • Is the discussion meaningful? • Does it highlight the important findings of the study? • Is there enough explanation of all significant findings? • Is the comparison logical and reasoned properly? What the limitations of the study are as presented in the discussions? • Does it open new vistas for further research? • •

23. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO CONCLUSION Are the conclusions meaningful? Are they supported by the data collected and the results drawn? Are they based on Aim and objective of the study? Has the research question been answered? Have they generated and presented some new hypothesis as conclusion? Have they made appropriate suggestions or recommendations? Can the conclusions be believed?

24. REFERENCES References provide an opportunity to the reader to pursue further reading and enable more learning. The reader can search the source so, that they can verify and follow up what is asserted. ➤ Primary References Primary References are those which are direct sources of the stuff which is cited in the article. ➤ Secondary References Secondary References are those which are indirect sources because they would have imported and cited that stuff from others work.

25. CRITICAL APPRAISAL RELATED TO REFERENCES • Are the references for every citation in the text part, tables, legends etc. of the article? • How many secondary references are present? Are they accurate references? • Are there enough references to recent publications? • Have they been presented according to specific scientific conventions?

26. Thank you