how to critique a medical research article

This website is intended for healthcare professionals

• { $refs.search.focus(); })" aria-controls="searchpanel" :aria-expanded="open" class="hidden lg:inline-flex justify-end text-gray-800 hover:text-primary py-2 px-4 lg:px-0 items-center text-base font-medium"> Search

Search menu

Barker J, Linsley P, Kane R, 3rd edn. London: Sage; 2016

Ethical guidelines for educational research. 2018; https://tinyurl.com/c84jm5rt

Bowling A Research methods in health, 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education; 2014

Gliner JA, Morgan GAMahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000

Critical Skills Appraisal Programme checklists. 2021; https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists

Cresswell J, 4th edn. London: Sage; 2013

Grainger A Principles of temperature monitoring. Nurs Stand. 2013; 27:(50)48-55 https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2013.08.27.50.48.e7242

Jupp VLondon: Sage; 2006

Continuing professional development (CPD). 2021; http://www.hcpc-uk.org/cpd

London: NHS England; 2017 http://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/advanced-clinical-practice

Kennedy M, Burnett E Hand hygiene knowledge and attitudes: comparisons between student nurses. Journal of Infection Prevention. 2011; 12:(6)246-250 https://doi.org/10.1177/1757177411411124

Lindsay-Smith G, O'Sullivan G, Eime R, Harvey J, van Ufflen JGZ A mixed methods case study exploring the impact of membership of a multi-activity, multi-centre community group on the social wellbeing of older adults. BMC Geriatrics. 2018; 18 https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12877-018-0913-1.pdf

Morse JM, Pooler C, Vann-Ward T Awaiting diagnosis of breast cancer: strategies of enduring for preserving self. Oncology Nursing Forum. 2014; 41:(4)350-359 https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.350-359

Revalidation. 2019; http://revalidation.nmc.org.uk

Parahoo K Nursing research, principles, processes and issues, 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014

Polit DF, Beck CT Nursing research, 10th edn. Philadelphia (PA): Wolters Kluwer; 2017

Critiquing a published healthcare research paper

Angela Grainger

Nurse Lecturer/Scholarship Lead, BPP University, and editorial board member

View articles · Email Angela

Research is defined as a ‘systematic inquiry using orderly disciplined methods to answer questions or to solve problems' ( Polit and Beck, 2017 :743). Research requires academic discipline coupled with specific research competencies so that an appropriate study is designed and conducted, leading to the drawing of relevant conclusions relating to the explicit aim/s of the study.

Relevance of research to nursing and health care

For those embarking on a higher degree such as a master's, taught doctorate, or a doctor of philosophy, the relationship between research, knowledge production and knowledge utilisation becomes clear during their research tuition and guidance from their research supervisor. But why should other busy practitioners juggling a work/home life balance find time to be interested in healthcare research? The answer lies in the relationship between the outcomes of research and its relationship to the determination of evidence-based practice (EBP).

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) require registered practitioners to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. This requirement incorporates being aware of the current EBP relevant to the registrant's field of practice, and to consider its application in relation to the decisions made in the delivery of patient care.

Advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) are required to be involved in aspects of research activities ( Health Education England, 2017 ). It is for this reason that practitioners need to know how EBP is influenced by research findings and, moreover, need to be able to read and interpret a research study that relates to a particular evidence base. Reading professional peer-reviewed journals that have an impact factor (the yearly average number of citations of papers published in a previous 2-year period in a given journal is calculated by a scientometric index giving an impact factor) is evidence of continuing professional development (CPD).

CPD fulfils part of the HCPC's and the NMC's required professional revalidation process ( HCPC, 2021 ; NMC, 2019 ). For CPD in relation to revalidation, practitioners can give the publication details of a research paper, along with a critique of that paper, highlighting the relevance of the paper's findings to the registrant's field of practice.

Defining evidence-based practice

According to Barker et al (2016:4.1) EBP is the integration of research evidence and knowledge to current clinical practice and is to be used at a local level to ensure that patients receive the best quality care available. Because patients are at the receiving end of EBP it is important that the research evidence is credible. This is why a research study has to be designed and undertaken rigorously in accordance with academic and scientific discipline.

The elements of EBP

EBP comprises three elements ( Figure 1 ). The key element is research evidence, followed by the expert knowledge and professional opinion of the practitioner, which is important especially when there is no research evidence—for example, the most appropriate way to assist a patient out of bed, or perform a bed bath. Last, but in no way of least importance, is the patient's preference for a particular procedure. An example of this is the continued use of thermal screening dots for measuring a child's temperature on the forehead, or in the armpit because children find these options more acceptable than other temperature measuring devices, which, it is argued, might give a more accurate reading ( Grainger, 2013 ).

Understanding key research principles

To interpret a published research study requires an understanding of key research principles. Research authors use specific research terms in their publications to describe and to explain what they have done and why. So without an awareness of the research principles underpinning the study, how can readers know if what they are reading is credible?

Validity and reliability have long been the two pillars on which the quality of a research study has been judged ( Gliner and Morgan, 2000 ). Validity refers to how accurately a method measures what it is intended to measure. If a research study has a high validity, it means that it produces results that correspond to real properties, characteristics, and variations in the part of the physical or social world that is being studied ( Jupp, 2006 ).

Reliability is the extent to which a measuring instrument, for example, a survey using closed questions, gives the same consistent results when that survey is repeated. The measurement is considered reliable if the same result can be consistently achieved by using the same methods under the same circumstances ( Parahoo, 2014 ).

The research topic is known as the phenomenon in a singular sense, or phenomena if what is to be researched is plural. It is a key principle of research that it is the nature of the phenomenon, in association with the study's explicit research aim/s, that determines the research design. The research design refers to the overall structure or plan of the research ( Bowling, 2014 :166).

Methodology means the philosophy underpinning how the research will be conducted. It is essential for the study's research design that an appropriate methodology for the conduct and execution of the study is selected, otherwise the research will not meet the requirements of being valid and reliable. The research methods will include the design for data sampling, how recruitment into the study will be undertaken, the method/s used for the actual data collection, and the subsequent data analysis from which conclusions will be drawn (see Figure 2 ).

Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies

A quantitative methodology is where the phenomenon lends itself to an investigation of data that can be numerically analysed using an appropriate statistical test/s. Quantitative research rests on the philosophical view that science has to be neutral and value-free, which is why precise measurement instruments are required ( Box 1 ). Quantitative research is influenced by the physical sciences such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The purpose of quantitative studies is to identify whether there are any causal relationships between variables present in the phenomenon. In short, a variable is an attribute that can vary and take on different values, such as the body temperature or the heart rate ( Polit and Beck, 2017 :748).

Quantitative studies can sometimes have a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a prediction of the study's outcome, and the aim of the study is to show either that the hypothesis is demonstrated as proven, or that it is not proven. Often a hypothesis is about a predicted relationship between variables. There are two types of variables, independent and dependent. An independent variable causes a change in the specific phenomenon being studied, while a dependent variable is the change in that phenomenon. The first example in Box 1 might help to clarify the difference.

An example of a hypothesis would be that older people who have a history of falls have a reduction in the incidence of falls due to exercise therapy. The causal relationship is between the independent variable— the exercise therapy—and the dependent variable—a falls reduction.

A qualitative methodology aims to explore a phenomenon with the aim of understanding the experience of the phenomenon from the perspective of those affected by it. Qualitative research is influenced by the social and not the physical sciences. Concepts and themes arise from the researcher/s interpretation of the data gained from observations and interviews. The collected data are non-numerical and this is the distinction from a quantitative study. The data collected are coded in accordance with the type of method being used in the research study, for example, discourse analysis; phenomenology; grounded theory. The researcher identifies themes from the data descriptions, and from the data analysis a theoretical understanding is seen to emerge.

A qualitative methodology rests on the philosophical view that science cannot be neutral and value-free because the researcher and the participants are part of the world that the research study aims to explore.

Unlike quantitative studies, the results of which can often be generalised due to the preciseness of the measuring instruments, qualitative studies are not usually generalisable. However, knowledge comparisons can be made between studies that have some similarity of focus. For example, the uncovering of causative or aggravating factors leading to the experiences of pain management for oncology patients, and for patients who have rheumatoid arthritis, or another long-term health problem for which pain is a characteristic feature. The validity of a qualitative study relates to the accurate representation of the data collected and analysed, and which shows that data has been saturated, meaning no new data or analysed findings are forthcoming. This is demonstrated in a clear data audit trail, and the study's findings are therefore seen as credible (see the second example in Box 1 ).

Box 1.Research study examples

• An example of a quantitative research study Kennedy and Burnett (2011) conducted a survey to determine whether there were any discernible differences in knowledge and attitudes between second- and third-year pre-registration nursing students toward hand-hygiene practices. The collected data and its subsequent analysis is presented in numerical tables and graphs, but these are supported by text explaining the research findings and how these were ascertained. For full details, see 10.1177/1757177411411124
• 2. An example of a qualitative research study Morse et al (2014) undertook an exploratory study to see what coping strategies were used by women awaiting a possible diagnosis of breast cancer. Direct quotes from the study participants appeared in the writing up of the research because it is a requirement of qualitative research that there be a transparent data audit trail. The research showed two things, both essential requirements of qualitative research. First, how the collected data were saturated to ensure that no data had been left inadequately explored, or that the data coding had been prematurely closed and, second, having captured the breadth and depth of the data findings, the researchers showed how the direct quotes were thematically coded to reveal the women's coping strategies. For full details, see 10.1188/14.ONF.350-359
• 3. An example of a mixed-methods study Lindsay-Smith et al (2018) investigated and explored the impact on elderly people's social wellbeing when they were members of a community that provided multi-activities. The study combined a quantitative survey that recorded participants' sociodemographic characteristics and measured participation in activities with a focus group study to gauge participants' perceptions of the benefits of taking part in the activities. For full details, see https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12877-018-0913-1.pdf

Sometimes a study cannot meet its stated research aims by using solely a quantitative or a qualitative methodology, so a mixed-methods approach combining both quantitative and qualitative methods for the collection and analysis of data are used. Cresswell (2013) explains that, depending on the aim and purpose of the study, it is possible to collect either the quantitative data first and analyse these, followed by the qualitative data and their analysis. This is an explanatory/exploratory sequence. Or the qualitative data may be collected first and analysed, followed by the quantitative; an exploratory/explanatory process. Whichever approach is used, the cumulative data analyses have to be synthesised to give a clear picture of the overall findings ( Box 1 ).

The issue of bias

Bias is a negative feature of research because it relates to either an error in the conceptualisation of the study due to the researcher/s adopting a skewed or idiosyncratic perspective, or to errors in the data analysis. Bias will affect the validity and reliability of a study, so it is important that any bias is eliminated in quantitative studies, or minimised and accounted for in qualitative studies.

Scientific and ethical approval

It should be noted that, before any research study proceeds, the research proposal for that study must have been reviewed and agreed to by a scientific and ethics committee. The purpose of a scientific and ethics committee is to see that those recruited into a study are not harmed or damaged, and that the study will contribute to the advancement of knowledge. The committee pays particular attention to whether any bias might have been introduced to a study. The researchers will have detailed the reason why the study is required, the explicit aim/s and purpose of the study, the methodology of the study, and its subsequent design, including the chosen research methods for the collection of the data (sampling and study recruitment), and what method/s will be used for data analysis.

A literature review is undertaken and the established (published) international literature on the research topic is summarised to highlight what is already known on the topic and/or to show any topic gaps that have not yet been researched. The British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018) also gives guidance for research proposals that are deemed to be educational evaluation studies, including ‘close-practice’ research studies. Any ethical issues such as how people will be recruited into the study, the gaining of informed voluntary consent, any conflict of interest between the researcher/s and the proposed research topic, and whether the research is being funded or financially supported by a particular source will also have been considered.

Critiquing a published research paper

It is important to remember that a published paper is not the research report. It is a sample of the research report. The research author/s are presenting their research findings as a succinct summary. Only a passing mention might be made that ethical approval and voluntary informed consent were obtained. However, readers can be assured that all publications in leading journals with a good reputation are subject to an external peer review process. Any concerns about a paper's content will have been ironed out prior to publication.

It will be apparent that there are several particular research designs. The Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) provides online information to help the interpretation of each type of study, and does this by providing questions to help the reader consider and critique the paper ( CASP, 2021 ).

General points for critiquing a paper include the following:

• The paper should be readable and have explicit statements on the purpose of the research, its chosen methodology and design
• Read the paper thoroughly to get a feel for what the paper is saying
• Consider what the researcher/s says about any ethical issues and how these have been handled
• Look at how the data were collected and analysed. Are the explanations for these aspects clear? In a quantitative study, are any graphs or charts easy to understand and is there supporting text to aid the interpretation of the data? In a qualitative study, are direct quotes from the research participants included, and do the researcher/s show how data collected from interviews and observations were coded into data categories and themes?
• In a mixed-method study, how are the quantitative and qualitative analyses synthesised?
• Do the conclusions seem to fit the handling of the data's analysis?
• An important test of validity is whether the study's title relates well to the content of the paper and, conversely, whether the content reflect a corresponding match to the study's title.

Finally, remember that the research study could have been conducted using a different methodological design provided the research aims would still have been met, but a critique of the paper relates to what has been published and not what otherwise might have been done.

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Assign mandatory training and keep all your records in-one-place.

Help and Feedback

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• YJBM Updates
• Editorial Board
• Colloquium Series
• Podcast Series
• Open Access
• Call for Papers
• PubMed Publications
• News & Views
• Article Request Form
• Why Publish in YJBM?
• Types of Articles Published
• Manuscript Submission Guidelines
• YJBM Ethical Guidelines

Points to Consider When Reviewing Articles

• Writing and Submitting a Review
• Join Our Peer Reviewer Database

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

General questions that Reviewers should keep in mind when reviewing articles are the following:

• Is the article of interest to the readers of YJBM ?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript?
• How can the Editors work with the Authors to improve the submitted manuscripts, if the topic and scope of the manuscript is of interest to YJBM readers?

The following contains detailed descriptions as to what should be included in each particular type of article as well as points that Reviewers should keep in mind when specifically reviewing each type of article.

YJBM will ask Reviewers to Peer Review the following types of submissions:

Download PDF

Frequently asked questions.

These manuscripts should present well-rounded studies reporting innovative advances that further knowledge about a topic of importance to the fields of biology or medicine. The conclusions of the Original Research Article should clearly be supported by the results. These can be submitted as either a full-length article (no more than 6,000 words, 8 figures, and 4 tables) or a brief communication (no more than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 2 tables). Original Research Articles contain five sections: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion.

Reviewers should consider the following questions:

• What is the overall aim of the research being presented? Is this clearly stated?
• Have the Authors clearly stated what they have identified in their research?
• Are the aims of the manuscript and the results of the data clearly and concisely stated in the abstract?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background information to enable readers to better understand the problem being identified by the Authors?
• Have the Authors provided sufficient evidence for the claims they are making? If not, what further experiments or data needs to be included?
• Are similar claims published elsewhere? Have the Authors acknowledged these other publications? Have the Authors made it clear how the data presented in the Author’s manuscript is different or builds upon previously published data?
• Is the data presented of high quality and has it been analyzed correctly? If the analysis is incorrect, what should the Authors do to correct this?
• Do all the figures and tables help the reader better understand the manuscript? If not, which figures or tables should be removed and should anything be presented in their place?
• Is the methodology used presented in a clear and concise manner so that someone else can repeat the same experiments? If not, what further information needs to be provided?
• Do the conclusions match the data being presented?
• Have the Authors discussed the implications of their research in the discussion? Have they presented a balanced survey of the literature and information so their data is put into context?
• Is the manuscript accessible to readers who are not familiar with the topic? If not, what further information should the Authors include to improve the accessibility of their manuscript?
• Are all abbreviations used explained? Does the author use standard scientific abbreviations?

Case reports describe an unusual disease presentation, a new treatment, an unexpected drug interaction, a new diagnostic method, or a difficult diagnosis. Case reports should include relevant positive and negative findings from history, examination and investigation, and can include clinical photographs. Additionally, the Author must make it clear what the case adds to the field of medicine and include an up-to-date review of all previous cases. These articles should be no more than 5,000 words, with no more than 6 figures and 3 tables. Case Reports contain five sections: abstract; introduction; case presentation that includes clinical presentation, observations, test results, and accompanying figures; discussion; and conclusions.

• Does the abstract clearly and concisely state the aim of the case report, the findings of the report, and its implications?
• Does the introduction provide enough details for readers who are not familiar with a particular disease/treatment/drug/diagnostic method to make the report accessible to them?
• Does the manuscript clearly state what the case presentation is and what was observed so that someone can use this description to identify similar symptoms or presentations in another patient?
• Are the figures and tables presented clearly explained and annotated? Do they provide useful information to the reader or can specific figures/tables be omitted and/or replaced by another figure/table?
• Are the data presented accurately analyzed and reported in the text? If not, how can the Author improve on this?
• Do the conclusions match the data presented?
• Does the discussion include information of similar case reports and how this current report will help with treatment of a disease/presentation/use of a particular drug?

Reviews provide a reasoned survey and examination of a particular subject of research in biology or medicine. These can be submitted as a mini-review (less than 2,500 words, 3 figures, and 1 table) or a long review (no more than 6,000 words, 6 figures, and 3 tables). They should include critical assessment of the works cited, explanations of conflicts in the literature, and analysis of the field. The conclusion must discuss in detail the limitations of current knowledge, future directions to be pursued in research, and the overall importance of the topic in medicine or biology. Reviews contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Is the review accessible to readers of YJBM who are not familiar with the topic presented?
• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the review?
• Does the introduction clearly state what the focus of the review will be?
• Are the facts reported in the review accurate?
• Does the Author use the most recent literature available to put together this review?
• Is the review split up under relevant subheadings to make it easier for the readers to access the article?
• Does the Author provide balanced viewpoints on a specific topic if there is debate over the topic in the literature?
• Are the figures or tables included relevant to the review and enable the readers to better understand the manuscript? Are there further figures/tables that could be included?
• Do the conclusions and outlooks outline where further research can be done on the topic?

Perspectives provide a personal view on medical or biomedical topics in a clear narrative voice. Articles can relate personal experiences, historical perspective, or profile people or topics important to medicine and biology. Long perspectives should be no more than 6,000 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Brief opinion pieces should be no more than 2,500 words and contain no more than 2 tables. Perspectives contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Does the abstract accurately and concisely summarize the main points provided in the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information so that the reader can understand the article if he or she were not familiar with the topic?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the Author break up the article under specific topics?
• Do the conclusions follow from the information provided by the Author?
• Does the Author reflect and provide lessons learned from a specific personal experience/historical event/work of a specific person?

Analyses provide an in-depth prospective and informed analysis of a policy, major advance, or historical description of a topic related to biology or medicine. These articles should be no more than 6,000 words with no more than 3 figures and 1 table. Analyses contain four sections: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions and outlook.

• Does the abstract accurately summarize the contents of the manuscript?
• Does the introduction provide enough information if the readers are not familiar with the topic being addressed?
• Are there specific areas in which the Author can provide more detail to help the reader better understand the manuscript? Or are there places where the Author has provided too much detail that detracts from the main point?

Profiles describe a notable person in the fields of science or medicine. These articles should contextualize the individual’s contributions to the field at large as well as provide some personal and historical background on the person being described. More specifically, this should be done by describing what was known at the time of the individual’s discovery/contribution and how that finding contributes to the field as it stands today. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words, with up to 6 figures, and 3 tables. The article should include the following: abstract, introduction, topics (with headings and subheadings), and conclusions.

• Does the Author provide information about the person of interest’s background, i.e., where they are from, where they were educated, etc.?
• Does the Author indicate how the person focused on became interested or involved in the subject that he or she became famous for?
• Does the Author provide information on other people who may have helped the person in his or her achievements?
• Does the Author provide information on the history of the topic before the person became involved?
• Does the Author provide information on how the person’s findings affected the field being discussed?
• Does the introduction provide enough information to the readers, should they not be familiar with the topic being addressed?

Interviews may be presented as either a transcript of an interview with questions and answers or as a personal reflection. If the latter, the Author must indicate that the article is based on an interview given. These pieces should be no more than 5,000 words and contain no more than 3 figures and 2 tables. The articles should include: abstract, introduction, questions and answers clearly indicated by subheadings or topics (with heading and subheadings), and conclusions.

• Does the Author provide relevant information to describe who the person is whom they have chosen to interview?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has chosen the person being interviewed?
• Does the Author explain why he or she has decided to focus on a specific topic in the interview?
• Are the questions relevant? Are there more questions that the Author should have asked? Are there questions that the Author has asked that are not necessary?
• If necessary, does the Author divide the article into specific topics to help the reader better access the article? If not, how should the author break up the article under specific topics?
• Does the Author accurately summarize the contents of the interview as well as specific lesson learned, if relevant, in the conclusions?

A guide to critiquing a research paper on clinical supervision: enhancing skills for practice

Affiliation.

• 1 Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK.
• PMID: 24818837
• DOI: 10.1111/jpm.12161

This paper aims to do two things: First, we want to show the reader how to critique a published research paper. The second aim is to take the reader through the various stages of critiquing using a guide. In the paper, we explain at each stage the research terms that can deter the novice critic from reading and understanding the findings in research. From this we hope the reader will have developed an ability to do their own critiquing, so that they are better informed about the quality of research that influences nursing practice. In this paper we have taken a previously published paper on the effectiveness of clinical supervision and undertaken a systematic critique of the merits of this quantitative research using a recognized critiquing framework compiled by Coughlan et al. (2007). Our purpose was twofold: First, we wanted to demonstrate the various stages of critiquing a paper in order that the reader might make an informed judgment of the quality and relevance of the research. The reader/critic is then able to decide whether to use this research in their own practice. Second, we wanted to assist the reader to develop their own critical, analytical skills through methodically appraising the merits of published research. Nursing as an evidence-based profession requires nurses at both pre- and post-registration level to be able to understand, synthesize and critique research, this being a fundamental part of many nursing curricula. These have become core skills to acquire because implementing up-to-date evidence is the cornerstone of contemporary nursing practice. We have provided in this paper a template for critiquing, which is based on our combined experiences as academics specifically in teaching at the bachelor, master's and doctoral levels.

Keywords: clinical supervision; critiquing skills; effectiveness; quantitative research; research critique.

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

• Clinical Competence*
• Guidelines as Topic*
• Health Services Research*
• Organization and Administration
• Peer Review, Research / methods*
• Peer Review, Research / standards