CRITICAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

1. How to Critically Review an
Article
April 2012
Singh M
SETPRAS
www.setpras.org

2. Learning Objectives
• Understand what a critical review is
• Understand the different types of articles
• Be able to perform a critical review of a published article

3. Introduction
• A critical review involves understanding, evaluating and
then analysing all aspects of an article
• The structure of an article is broadly similar, although it is
worth considering the different types of articles
commonly published

4. Introduction
• Article types:
– Original research article
• This category includes studies and are what most people think of when they
talk about a scientific article
– Usually up to 3000 words in length
– Typically, anywhere from 5-50 references, depending on subject
– Review article
• This is a comprehensive review on a particular subject. It summarises
available evidence and presents information in a balanced way
– Usually up to 5000 words in length
– Typically, anywhere from 10-100 reference, depending on subject
– Case report
• These are short articles that demonstrate an interesting aspect of a case,
illustrated by an example
– Usually up to 1500 words
– Typically, anywhere from 3-10 references

5. Introduction
• Scientific articles:
– Most follow same basic pattern:
– Abstract
– Introduction
– Methods
– Results
– Discussion
– References
– (Figures and Tables, if relevant)

6. Critical Appraisal
• Stages of critical appraisal:
• 1) Read and re-read the article
• 2) Understand what was done and why
• 3) Analyse the results and discussion
• 4) Ask questions about the information presented

7. Critical Appraisal
• Questions to be asking yourself about the article are best
structured in the same way as the article
• Initially it is best to ask some general questions
• Then look at more detail into what they did and how and
why

8. Critical Appraisal
• The Journal
• 1) What journal was it published in?
• 2) Why this journal? Is it appropriate for the subject of
the article?
• 3) Is the journal peer-reviewed?
• 4) What is the journal impact factor?

9. Critical Appraisal
• The Authors
• 1) How many authors are there?
• 2) Are they known for work in this field?
• 3) Which institution do they work in?
• 4) What is that institution known for?
• 5) Does it produce a lot of research publications?

10. Critical Appraisal
• The Article
• 1) What kind of article is it?
• 2) Was the article interesting?
• 3) Did the article provide new, previously unknown
information?
• 4) Was the article well presented?

11. Critical Appraisal
• Specific analysis of a scientific article:
• Title, Introduction and Abstract:
– 1) Is the title of the article suitable for what was done?
– 2) Does the abstract give an accurate summary of the article?
– 3) Were the aims and objectives of the study clearly outlined?
– 4) Did the introduction provide enough information as to what
has led to this study?
– 5) Was the study well designed to be able to answer the aims
and objectives?

12. Critical Appraisal
• Materials and Methods:
– 1) Are the methods used appropriate?
– 2) Was the population looked at correct?
– 3) Were interventions randomised?
– 4) Were there any controls?
– 5) Are the demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria
defined?
– 6) Were there sufficient numbers to be able to answer the
research question?

13. Critical Appraisal
• Results:
– 1) Were the results well presented?
– 2) Were all results provided or were some excluded?
– 3) Are the results presented in a way to be able to answer the
original research questions?
– 4) Were the results presented in an easy to comprehend way?
E.g. figures, tables etc.
– 5) Are the results valid?

14. Critical Appraisal
• Statistics:
– 1) Were the statistical tests used appropriate?
– 2) Have they performed statistical tests on the correct results?

15. Critical Appraisal
• Discussion:
– 1) Were all the results discussed?
– 2) Were the findings related to the original hypothesis?
– 3) Were the author’s interpretations of the results correct?
– 4) Did the authors discuss the drawbacks/limitations of the
study?
– 5) Do you agree with their conclusions?

16. Critical Appraisal
• References:
– 1) Were there an appropriate number of references?
– 2) Were the references up to date?
– 3) Were the references used appropriately within the article?
– 4) Have the authors self-referenced?

17. Critical Appraisal
• Other:
– 1) Were any conflicts of interest declared?
– 2) Were any sources of funding declared?

18. Conclusions
• When critically reviewing an article there are many
questions to be asked
• Asking these questions will help provide a better
understanding of the article and its results
• This is a skill useful at all levels of training
• We hope you will consider submitting critical reviews of
articles you may have recently read, please see our
submissions page for further details

19. Further Information
• http://www.setpras.org/critical-reviews.html
• http://www.setpras.org/submit.html
• submissions@setpras.org