HOW TO CRITICALLY APPRAISE A RESEARCH PAPER? (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ishtiaq Chaudhary
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Professional Experience ◽  
Professional Career ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Modern Medical Practice ◽  
Based Medicine

UNSTRUCTURED Critical appraisal of research paper is a fundamental skill in modern medical practice, which is skills-set and developed throughout the professional career. The professional experience facilitates this and through integration with clinical experience and patient preference, permits high quality evidence-based medicine practice in patient care. These skills to be mastered not only by academic medical professionals but also by the clinicians involved in clinical practice. In this review, the important questions or steps which are integral in assessing the reliability and validity of a research are gathered during critical review of a research paper. The objective of this review is to provide a simple and robust method for assessing the trustworthiness of a research paper and its value in clinical practice.

scholarly journals HOW TO CRITICALLY APPRAISE A RESEARCH PAPER?

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-240
Author(s):  
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medical Practice ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Professional Career ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Modern Medical Practice ◽  
Based Medicine

Background: Critical appraisal of research paper is a fundamental skill in modern medical practice, which is skills-set and developed throughout the professional career. The professional experience facilitates this and through integration with clinical experience and patient preference, permits high quality evidence-based medicine practice in patient care. These skills to be mastered not only by academic medical professionals but also by the clinicians involved in clinical practice. Objective: To provide a simple and robust method for assessing the trustworthiness of a research paper and its value in clinical practice. Methodology: Through detailed literature search, All essential sections and subsection mandatory for a research paper were identified followed by the necessary steps or information required in each section or questions which may arise or needs to addressed were identified. The important questions or steps which are integral in assessing the reliability and validity of a research are gathered during critical review of a research paper.   Results: Out of 128 full text articles, 49 full-text articles containing robust and pertinent information as per objective were short listed for review. Conclusion: Critical appraisal of a research paper or project is a fundamental skill in modern medical practice for assessing the worth of clinical research and in providing a guideline of its relevance to the profession.

scholarly journals The art and craft of scientific writing and critical appraisal of a research paper

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
Bikal Ghimire
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
Scientific Writing ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Online Publishing ◽  
Art Form

Writing is an art and like any art form, it needs perseverance, dedication and practice. However, to write a good quality paper, the habit of reading scientific articles and analyzing them is very important. With the advent of internet and online publishing, we have access to colossal research articles on myriads of subjects making extraordinary conclusions.  Evidence based practice requires us to rely on literature for our clinical practice, and we have abundant publications on all aspects claiming to justify all sides of the argument. In this context it becomes more important for all in clinical practice to be able to dissect an article and analyze it in details.

scholarly journals How to read an ethics paper

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (12) ◽  
pp. 810-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Jansen ◽  
Peter Ellerton
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medical Ethics ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Critical Reasoning ◽  
Ethical Decisions ◽  
Journal Clubs ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Work Done

In recent decades, evidence-based medicine has become one of the foundations of clinical practice, making it necessary that healthcare practitioners develop keen critical appraisal skills for scientific papers. Worksheets to guide clinicians through this critical appraisal are often used in journal clubs, a key part of continuing medical education. A similar need is arising for health professionals to develop skills in the critical appraisal of medical ethics papers. Medicine is increasingly ethically complex, and there is a growing medical ethics literature that modern practitioners need to be able to use in their practice. In addition, clinical ethics services are commonplace in healthcare institutions, and the lion’s share of the work done by these services is done by clinicians in addition to their usual roles. Education to support this work is important. In this paper, we present a worksheet designed to help busy healthcare practitioners critically appraise ethics papers relevant to clinical practice. In the first section, we explain what is different about ethics papers. We then describe how to work through the steps in our critical appraisal worksheet: identifying the point at issue; scrutinising definitions; dissecting the arguments presented; considering counterarguments; and finally deciding on relevance. Working through this reflective worksheet will help healthcare practitioners to use the ethics literature effectively in clinical practice. We also intend it to be a shared evaluative tool that can form the basis of professional discussion such as at ethics journal clubs. Practising these critical reasoning skills will also increase practitioners’ capacity to think through difficult ethical decisions in daily clinical practice.

scholarly journals The Diagnosis and Therapy of Degenerative Knee Joint Disease: Expert Consensus from the Chinese Pain Medicine Panel

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Huang ◽  
Yan-Qing Liu ◽  
Li-Shuang Liang ◽  
Xue-Wu Lin ◽  
Tao Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Diagnosis And Treatment ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Knee Joints ◽  
Reproduction Rate ◽  
Pain Specialist ◽  
Chinese Association ◽  
The One ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Based Medicine

At present, there are many constantly updated guidelines and consensuses on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoarthritis both at home and abroad. The recommendations established using methods of evidence-based medicine has experienced strict research on controlling bias and promoting reproduction rate. As a result, the previous evidence was reevaluated, and a lot of changes were provoked in the diagnosis and treatment concept of osteoarthritis. However, several methods not recommended by foreign guidelines are still in use in the current clinical practice in China. On the one hand, Chinese experts have not reached extensive consensus on whether it is necessary to make changes according to foreign guidelines. On the other hand, almost all the current relevant guidelines are on osteoarthritis, but the lesions around knee joints which, as a whole, bear the largest weight in human body, cannot be ignored. For this purpose, Chinese Association for the Study of Pain (CASP) organized some leading experts to formulate this Chinese Pain Specialist Consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative knee osteoarthritis (DKOA) in combination with the guidelines in foreign countries and the expert experience of clinical practice in China. The consensus, which includes the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical manifestation, diagnostic criteria, and treatments of DKOA, is intended to be used by first-line doctors, including pain physicians to manage patients with DKOA.

scholarly journals SAT0623-HPR THE LIVED EXPERIENCES OF COGNITIVE DYSFUNCTION IN ADULTS WITH FIBROMYALGIA: A QUALITATIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1271.1-1272
Author(s):  
S. Derham ◽  
J. Lewis ◽  
E. Dures ◽  
F. Cramp
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Practice Research ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Poor Sleep ◽  
Cognitive Changes

Background:Adults with fibromyalgia frequently report symptoms of cognitive dysfunction, often referred to as fibrofog. However primary research exploring cognitive dysfunction in the lives of adults with fibromyalgia is very limited (Kravitz and Katz, 2015).Objectives:The aim of this review was to (i) synthesise the qualitative literature on the lived experiences of cognitive dysfunction in adults with fibromyalgia, (ii) develop common themes through thematic analysis and (iii) identify knowledge gaps to inform future research and clinical practice in this area.Methods:Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Amed, Scopus and OpenGrey), reference lists of key articles and two high impact qualitative journals were searched from 1990 to November 2018. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported primary qualitative data exploring the experiences of cognitive dysfunction in adults with fibromyalgia. Included studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist and extracted data analysed using narrative synthesis. SD conducted critical appraisal and data extraction on all included studies. FC, JL and ED reviewed five papers each. All papers were reviewed by two co-authors. Of the 1413 records identified, 15 studies were selected for inclusion.Results:These studies included 208 women and 22 men with fibromyalgia, aged 18 to 72 years and representing seven different countries. Duration of diagnosis was four months to 34 years. Fourteen studies used interviews and one used focus groups. None of the included studies focussed exclusively on cognitive function in adults with fibromyalgia. Three studies identified themes specific to cognitive dysfunction and fibromyalgia symptoms. The remaining 12 studies presented relevant data intertwined with the overall lived experiences of fibromyalgia.Cognitive dysfunction, as a part of fibromyalgia, was often unpredictable. Problems with memory and concentration that were most commonly reported were emotionally distressing and affected functional and vocational activities. Participants found communication effortful, with a negative impact on work, leisure and social activities. Stress, fear and worry around perceived cognitive changes were commonly expressed. Lost employment or changed work roles and relationships, due to cognitive difficulties, had negative impacts for many participants. The terms cognitive dysfunction and fibrofog were used interchangeably within the studies, but lacked common definition. This introduced uncertainty around whether participants and authors were describing the same phenomenon.Conclusion:Adults with fibromyalgia experience unpredictable and emotionally impactful difficulties related to cognitive dysfunction. Functional impact was broad-reaching, particularly around work ability and lost employment opportunities. It is unclear how cognitive symptoms in fibromyalgia related to co-morbid symptoms such as pain, fatigue and poor sleep. Further research focusing on the full impact of cognitive function on the lives of adults with fibromyalgia is recommended to inform clinical practice. Research to establish clarity of definition of the terms cognitive dysfunction and fibrofog within fibromyalgia is highly recommended.References:[1]Kravitz H, Katz R. Fibrofog and fibromyalgia: a narrative review and implications for clinical practice. Rheumatology International. 2015;35(7):1115-25.Acknowledgments:This work is supported by the National Institute for Heath Research [ICA-PCAF-2018-01-078 to SD]Disclosure of Interests:Sandra Derham: None declared, Jenny Lewis: None declared, Emma Dures Grant/research support from: Independent Learning Grant from Pfizer, combined funding for a research fellow from Celgene, Abbvie and Novartis, Paid instructor for: A fee from Novartis to deliver training to nurses., Fiona Cramp: None declared

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Shoulder Tissue Irritability Classification

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M Kareha ◽  
Philip W McClure ◽  
Alicia Fernandez-Fernandez
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Rating System ◽  
Roc Curve Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional

Abstract Objective Rating tissue irritability has been recommended to aid decision making in several recent clinical practice guidelines. An explicit method for rating tissue irritability was proposed as part of the Staged Algorithm for Rehabilitation Classification: Shoulder Disorders (STAR-Shoulder), but the reliability and validity of this classification are unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder tissue irritability ratings as part of a system designed to guide appropriate treatment strategy and intensity. Methods A clinical measurement, prospective repeated-measures cross-sectional design was used. The 101 consecutive participants with primary complaints of shoulder pain were assessed by pairs of blinded raters (24 raters in total) and rated for tissue irritability. Patients completed 3 patient-rated outcome (PRO) measures reflecting both pain and disability, and these scores were compared with ratings of tissue irritability. Paired ratings of irritability were analyzed for reliability with prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted Kappa for ordinal scales (PABAK-OS). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare PRO measures across different levels of irritability. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized to derive cut-off scores for 3 PRO instruments. Results Interrater reliability was 0.69 (95% CI = 0.59–0.78), with 67% agreement. All PRO measures were significantly different among 3 levels of tissue irritability. Conclusion There appear to be acceptable reliability and a strong relationship between PRO measures and therapist-rated tissue irritability, supporting the use of the STAR-Shoulder irritability rating system. Impact Several clinical practice guidelines have recommended that clinicians rate tissue irritability as part of their examination. This study provides important new information supporting the reliability and validity of the STAR-Shoulder tissue irritability rating system.

scholarly journals The Multifocal Approach to Sharing in Shared Decision Making: A Critical Appraisal of the MAPPIN’SDM

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110107
Author(s):  
David Forner ◽  
Christopher W. Noel ◽  
Laura Boland ◽  
Arwen H. Pieterse ◽  
Cornelia M. Borkhoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Measurement Instrument ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Property Assessment

Objective Shared decision making integrates health care provider expertise with patient values and preferences. The MAPPIN’SDM is a recently developed measurement instrument that incorporates physician, patient, and observer perspectives during medical consultations. This review sought to critically appraise the development, sensibility, reliability, and validity of the MAPPIN’SDM and to determine in which settings it has been used. Methods This critical appraisal was performed through a targeted review of the literature. Articles outlining the development or measurement property assessment of the MAPPIN’SDM or that used the instrument for predictor or outcome purposes were identified. Results Thirteen studies were included. The MAPPIN’SDM was developed by both adapting and building on previous shared decision making measurement instruments, as well as through creation of novel items. Content validity, face validity, and item quality of the MAPPIN’SDM are adequate. Internal consistency ranged from 0.91 to 0.94 and agreement statistics from 0.41 to 0.92. The MAPPIN’SDM has been evaluated in several populations and settings, ranging from chronic disease to acute oncological settings. Limitations include high reading levels required for self-administered patient questionnaires and the small number of studies that have employed the instrument to date. Conclusion The MAPPIN’SDM generally shows adequate development, sensibility, reliability, and validity in preliminary testing and holds promise for shared decision making research integrating multiple perspectives. Further research is needed to develop its use in other patient populations and to assess patient understanding of complex item wording.

scholarly journals How to objectively assess and observe maladaptive pain behaviors in clinical rehabilitation: a systematic search and review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Naye ◽  
Chloé Cachinho ◽  
Annie-Pier Tremblay ◽  
Maude Saint-Germain Lavoie ◽  
Gabriel Lepage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Affective Factors ◽  
Pain Behaviors ◽  
Observation Methods ◽  
Critical Appraisal Tool ◽  
Secondary Objective

Abstract Background Cognitive-affective factors influence the perception of pain and disability. These factors can lead to pain behaviors (PB) that can persist and become maladaptive. These maladaptive PB will further increase the risk of chronicity or persistence of symptoms and disability. Thus, clinicians must be prepared to recognize maladaptive PB in a clinical context. To date, in the context of assessment in a rehabilitation setting, PB in clinical settings are poorly documented. The main objective of this study was to identify direct observation methods and critically appraise them in order to propose recommendations for practice. As a secondary objective, we explored and extracted the different observable PB that patients could exhibit and that clinicians could observe. Methods We conducted a comprehensive review on four databases with a generic search strategy in order to obtain the largest range of PB. For the first objective, a two-step critical appraisal used clinical criteria (from qualitative studies on barriers to implement routine measures) and psychometric criteria (from Brink and Louw critical appraisal tool) to determine which observation methods could be recommended for clinical practice. For the second objective, we extracted PB found in the literature to list potential PB that patients could exhibit, and clinicians could observe. Results From the 3362 retrieved studies, 47 met the inclusion criteria for the first objective. The clinical criteria allowed us to select three observation methods. After the psychometric step, two observation methods were retained and recommended for clinical practice: the Behavioral Avoidance Test-Back Pain (BAT-Back) and the Pain Behaviour Scale (PaBS). For the second objective, 107 studies met the inclusion criteria. The extraction of the PB allowed us to list a large range of PB and classify the data in 7 categories of PB. Conclusion Our results allowed us to recommend two observation methods for clinical practice. However, these methods have limitations and are validated only in chronic low back pain populations. With the extraction of PB presented in the literature, we contribute to better prepare clinicians to recognize PB in all patients who are experiencing pain.

A comparison of the ‘Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression’ and the ‘Montgomery-Asberg Depression rating Scale’

1999 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.P.A.M. Huijbrechts ◽  
P.M.J. Haffmans ◽  
K. Jonker ◽  
A. van Dijke ◽  
E. Hoencamp
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Global Impression ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Clinical Impression ◽  
Clinical Relationship ◽  
Hamilton Rating Scale ◽  
Depressive States

SummaryAlthough the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most frequently used rating scale for quantifying depressive states, it has been criticized for its reliability and its usability in clinical practice. This criticism is less applying to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Goal of the present study is to investigate the reliability and validity, and clinical relationship between the HRSD and the MADRS. For 60 out-patients with diagnosed depression (DSM IV296.2x, 296.3x, 300.40 and 311.00), the HRSD and MADRS were scored at baseline and 6 weeks later by an independent rater according to a structured interview. Also the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was assessed by a psychiatrist. Satisfying agreement was found between the totalscores (r= .75, p>.000 en r=.92, p>.000 respectively, at baseline and 6 weeks later). Furthermore agreement was found between the items of both scales, and these agree with the clinical impression. The reliability of the MADRS is more stable than the reliability of the HRSD (α = .6367 and α =.8900 vs α = .2193 and α = .8362 at baseline and at endpoint respectively). Considering the ease of scoring both scales in one interview and the widely international use of the HRSD, scoring both the HRSD and the MADRS to measure the severity of a depression seems to be an acceptabel covenant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document