1

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF
A RESEARCH PAPER

Prof. Suryani SKp., MHSc., PhD

Faculty of Nursing, Universitas Padjadjaran
 2

Critical Appraisal (CA)

 Critical appraisal is the process
of carefully and systematically
analyze the research paper to
judge its trustworthiness, and its
value and relevance in a particular
context.
 “Critical appraisal is the process
of systematically examining research
evidence to assess its validity,
results, and relevance before using it
to inform a decision”
(Hill and Spittlehouse, 2001, p.1).
 3

Why is CA important?
 Ensures a thorough assessment of the
research
 Recognises the strengths and weaknesses
of the research
 Develops a better understanding of the
research methods used
 Provides the ability to relate the published
research to your situation
 Ensures any bias in the research is
identified
 Assists in the implementation of effective
interventions in clinical practice
 4

Why Critical Appraisal is essential?

 Many of the research are not in good quality and
many studies are biased and their results are
untrue.
 This can lead us to draw false conclusions. If, these
false conclusions are applied to population, may
leads to a public health problem.
 Common misconception about researcharticles  Article
was published in a scientific journal so it must be
correct (it’s a myth)

(Trisha Greenhalgh, 2006)

 5

Bagaimana cara menelaah artikel secara kritis?

 6

Step 1 : Decide the Article to appraise

• Conduct a literature search and
obtain full text articles
• Look at the title : Is it interesting ?
Is it useful in your practice?
• Select topic
• Start reading
• Get to know about “Contents of a
research article”
 7

Anatomy of a Scientific Article

 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion/ Recommendation
 8

Critically Appraise What You Read.

And Keep giving your

comments on a separate
paper
 9
Step 2: Abstract
Use the information found in the abstract to answer
the questions below:
1. Likely to be useful in your practice?
2. Are your issues discussed there?
3. What are the main findings of the research?
4. Do you want to know more after reading the
abstract?
5. Was the research done in a similar setting to
yours?
 10

Abstract - after reading

Is the study reliable merely by reading the abstract?

Yes No

go ahead and start move on to

reading the article another article
 11

Step 3 : Introduction

 The introduction will help to identify the

key concepts, goals, subjects, and themes of
the research.
 Why was it done? “clear statement of the
purpose of the study”.
 Does the research question has some
element of novelty (is likely to add to
existing knowledge rather than
reconfirming the already well established
facts).
 12

Step 4 : Material & Methodology

 The Methodology will give a step-by-step
description of exactly how the study was carried
out.
 Brief but should include enough detail to enable
one to judge quality.
 Type of study
 Mention of study population
 Calculation of the sample size
 Method of sampling
 Identified all the potential confounding factors
 Description of Questionnaire
 Physical instruments and techniques used
 Biases, if any
 13

Methods : TYPES OF STUDIES

Different
research
questions
require different
study designs.
 14

Methodology: Questions to Ask

 Where the study was done?
 who was studied and how they were recruited.
 Is it primary or secondary data
 How the data was collected (interviews, focus
groups, questionnaires, surveys, observations,
etc.).
 Is there a basic demographics information
 Is the sample large enough to produce significant
results?
 Has the data been presented in a simple, intelligible
form?
 Are the statistical methods appropriate?
 Ethical issues – questions to ask
1. Was the study approved by an ethics committee?
2. Did patients give informed consent?
3. Was there a real need to conduct the trial?
4. Was there equipoise when the trial was initiated?
5. Was the trial of sufficient size to reach a
meaningful conclusion?
6. Was there an independent Data and Safety
Monitoring Board (DSMB)?
7. What role did the funder(s) play?
8. Are there any conflicts of interest?
 16

Step 5 : Results
 The aims in the introduction should be
addressed in the results.
 Maintain the logical sequences (no
bland statements)
 All research has some flaws, the impact
of the flaws need to assessed.
 If the findings are ‘statistically significant’, are
they also of clinical/public health relevance?
 If the findings are ‘statistically non significant’
is it possible that a real effect may have been
missed due to “low study power” as
consequence of low sample size.
 17

Results : Questions to Ask

 A- Are the results of the study valid?
 B-What are the results?
 C-Will the results help locally?
 Are the conclusions drawn by the authors
based on the actual findings of the study?
 Do you think the study results can be
gainfully utilized in your own clinical /
preventive / public health practice?
 18

Step 6 : Discussion & Conclusion

 How well are the results related to other

research on the same topic?
 In the discussion or conclusions section, is there
a review of how these results compare or
contrast with prior research?
 If this report found something different from
previous research, then it’s important to question
on appraising the reliability of the findings.
 The limitations of the research and possible
implications which are not mentioned in
the abstract.
 19

Discussion : Questions to ask

Compare the raw data given
in the tables with the results
analyzed in the discussion
and conclusions
Are the results reported in
the conclusions consistent
with what is reported in the
tables?
Is the interpretation
consistent with what the
actual findings were?