Section: Module 7: Lesson 1: Critical Evaluation of Epidemiologic Evidence | Epidemiology | NextGenU.org

  • Lab_tech_at_microscope.jpg
    Learning Objectives

    Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to:

    • Systematically critique a scientific epidemiology paper
    • Apply criteria to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiological reports and research

    Click here to start this lesson

    • Required Learning Resources and Activities
    • Scroll down to "Chapter 11: First Steps in Practical Epidemiology" and read the section titled "Critical Reading" (pages 178-181).   Answer 'Study questions' 11.1 and 11.2.

    • Read the article titled "How To Assess Epidemiological Studies" and become familiar with the key critical questions to ask when reading an epidemiological journal article.

    • Download the full publication.  Then, read "Handout 23.1, Checklist for the Critique of a Scientific Paper" (pages 213 - 214) in order to learn more about critiquing a scientific paper.

    • This activity gives you the opportunity to apply and build upon what you have learned about epidemiology in this course so far. You will read and critically evaluate an epidemiological research paper of your choice.

      Step 1: Review the list of questions outlined below that should be considered when critiquing and evaluating an epidemiology paper. This list is compiled from the resources found in module 6.

      Background:

      • Is the research question clearly stated? Is there a clearly stated and testable hypothesis?
      • Is the aim/objective of the study clearly stated?
      • Is there adequate justification for carrying out the study?
      Methods:
      • In general, are the methods described in a clear, concise, and complete manner?
      • In general, are the methods ethically sound?
      • What study design was used? Is the study design appropriate? Could the study design be improved?
      • Was the sample size discussed? Was the sample large enough to provide adequate statistical power to answer the principal research question?

      Measures of exposure(s) and outcome(s):

      • What was (were) the exposure(s) and outcome(s) of interest?
      • How were the exposure(s) and outcome(s) defined and measured in the study? Was the approach appropriate for each?

      Confounding and bias:

      • How were the study subjects selected? Could there be any significant selection bias?
      • How was the information gathered for the exposure(s) and outcomes(s)? Could there be any significant information bias?
      • Were the important confounders identified and adequately controlled for?
      • Could there have been any uncontrolled confounders in the study? If so, do you think that they might have affected the results?

      Data analysis:

      • What measures were used to assess the association between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
      • Were the statistical methods clearly and completely outlined? Were they appropriate?
      • How were the data presented? Are the graphs and/or tables effectively used and clearly labeled?

      Results and discussion:

      • Are the most important results clearly explained and highlighted?
      • Is it clear which results are statistically significant at each confidence interval? Is statistical significance displayed for all results?
      • Did the authors concisely summarize and interpret their important results?
      • Did the authors discuss internal validity (e.g., how bias, confounding, and statistical power issues may influence the validity of their findings)?
      • Did the authors discuss external validity (e.g.,how generalizable are the results to other populations that may differ in important ways from the study population)?
      • Did the authors discuss any sources of bias and confounding and their probable net effect on the results of the study?
      • Did the authors adequately discuss the limitations of the study?

      Step 2: Select a Research Report that interests you from this free issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. When you read your selected article, keep in mind the list of questions that should be considered when critiquing and evaluating an epidemiology paper as outlined in Step 1.

      Step 3: In your own words, summarize the aim, the methods, and the main findings of the research paper you selected. Your answer should contain 200-300 words. Make sure you properly cite your selected paper in a footnote. Any citation style that includes the authors and/or source organizations, URLs and publication dates is acceptable. For APA style citations please see McGill University’s APA Citation Style Guide: https://www.mcgill.ca/library/files/library/APA.pdf

      Step 4. In 500-750 words, critically discuss the paper you chose by answering at least 6 of the questions presented in step 1. However you must select and discuss at least one question from each of the following sections: Background, Methods, Measures of exposure(s) and outcome(s), Confounding and bias, Data analysis, and Results and discussion.

      Step 5: Review your work by asking yourself the questions listed below and then revise your document accordingly before final submission to ensure you capture the self-evaluation questions:

      1. Have I included a brief summary that covers the aim, methods, and main findings of the research paper I selected?
      2. Did I properly cite the research paper, mentioning the authors, source organizations, URLs, and publication dates as applicable?
      3. In my own words, did I thoroughly discuss each of the following sections: Background, Methods, Measures of exposure(s), and outcome(s)?
      4. Is the length of my assignment within the set word limit, not exceeding 750 words?

      Carefully evaluate your work using these queries as a guide to verify that your assignment meets all specified requirements. After fine-tuning your assignment based on this assessment, proceed to submit the final copy to the designated course platform's submission area for completion.

      Step 6: Submit your assignment by clicking “add a new discussion topic” below and completing the fields.

      OPTIONAL Step 7: Interact (10 minutes)

      If you would like to, you can reply to your peers' posts in a respectful and professional manner. Ensure that your post engages your peers' ideas by including a reflection on their comments, sharing ideas of other potential difficulties and parties involved, or asking thought-provoking questions. If a peer comments on your posting, please reply. To post a reply, click “Reply” on a particular discussion, write your feedback and then click on “Post to forum.”


    • Additional Learning Options
    • Review the entire article to become familiar with the application of advanced critical review skills in evaluating current epidemiological research.