Part III Intercollegiate exam / How to read a paper 2

I found this somewhere....can't remember exactly (sorry) but it is a nice overview on how to read the academic paper for the exam. I struggled to remember all the points. I used a simple, no fuss I am not an academic approach that seem to work ok,. See link http://www.wmsurgeons.com/kb/entry/94/

Academic viva for intercollegiate exam

· One hour to read two papers

· Write notes directly on the paper

· Have two different colour highlighter pens with you

· One colour for the good pints, another colour for the bad points

· Decide which paper you would prefer to discuss - you might get to choose!

· The academic viva is not simply an exercise in statistics

· For each paper consider the following points:

Title, authors, institution

· Is the title of the paper clear

· Is the subject of the paper relevant and important

· Does it come from an academic institution or smaller hospitals

· Are the numbers of authors appropriate

· Do the authors have a credible reputation in this field

Introduction

· Is it short and succinct

· Does it clearly set the background to the paper

· Are all relevant references included

· Is the discussion of previous studies balanced

· Are the aims of the current study clearly stated

Methods

· Determine the type of study

· From the type of study determine the level of evidence it will produce

· Decide whether the type of study is appropriate to the question asked

· Are inclusion and exclusion criteria stated

· Are the primary and secondary outcome measures stated

· Has an appropriate statistical method been used

Results

· Can all subjects be accounted for

· Were the baseline measures of the groups similar

· Are the results clearly stated in the text, figures or tables

· Are there any discrepancies between the text and table

Discussion

· Have appropriate conclusions been drawn from the data presented in this paper

· How does this compare with other peoples experiences

References

· Are the references up to date

Finally

· Summarise the paper in 5-6 sentences

· Pick out both the good and the bad points

· Form and opinion as to whether you think it is good, average or poor paper

· Decide whether it will change your practice

· Decide how you would have designed the study differently

Guidelines for the critical appraisal of a paper

· Who wrote the paper?

· Do they or the institution have a proven academic record?

· Is the paper interesting and relevant?

Introduction

· Did the study introduction address the relevant points?

· Was the study original?

· Were the aims clearly stated?

Methods

· Was an appropriate group of subjects studies?

· How were subjects recruited?

· What were the inclusion criteria?

· What were the exclusion criteria?

· Was the sample size justified?

· Was a power calculation performed?

· Was the study design appropriate?

· Review - systematic or meta-analysis

· Drug treatment - randomised controlled trail

· Prognosis - cohort study

· Causation - case - control study

· Were the study groups comparable?

· Demographics, baseline criteria etc

· Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised?

· How was the randomisation performed

· Were the groups treated equally other than for the experimental intervention?

· Were the outcome measures stated and relevant?

· Were measurements valid and reliable?

· Were patients and healthcare workers 'blinded' to the treatment given?

· Were all patients entered into the study properly accounted for?

· Is there any missing data?

· Were side effects and adverse outcome documented?

· Was the duration and completeness of follow up appropriate?

Statistics

· Were the statistical methods described?

· Does the tests chosen reflect the type of date

· Parametric versus parametric tests

· Were analyses performed on an intention to treat basis?

· Was systematic bias avoided or minimized?

Results

· How large was the treatment effect?

· How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?

Discussion

· Were the aims of the study fulfilled?

· Were the sources of error discussed?

· Are the relevant findings justified?

· Are the conclusions of the paper justified?

· Are likely treatment benefits worth the potential harm or costs?

· What is the impact of the paper?

· Can the results be generalised to other populations?

· What do you think of the paper?

Others in this Category

	CONSORT
	QUOROM Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of RCTs
	How to read a paper
	What is the Impact Factor of a journal?
	levels of evidence