Research Article Critique Checklist

from Ridsdale; Practitioner, 238:108-13. 1994.

Introduction:

• Is the study relevant & important to our practice?
• Is the work useful & original? Does it add to the fund of useful knowledge?
• Was the study setting similar enough to our working environment that, assuming the results are valid, they may be extrapolated to our practice?

• Was the architecture or design of the study appropriate to answer the questions posed in the introduction?
• Is the connection between the hypothesis & the instruments used clearly justified?
• Is the relationship between outcomes & measures plausible?
• Are the instruments used appropriate to the study & have they been validated previously?
• Are the population & the population sample defined & recognisably similar to that seen in practice?
• Are the recruitment definitions & inclusion/exclusion criteria clearly stated?
• Is the sample size sufficient to answer the questions posed, & has there been an attempt to estimate the required numbers in advance?

• Is the response rate adequate? Are drop-outs well described, & is there any reason to think that they differ materially from responders?
• Are the tables & figures clear?
• Have stastistical tests been applied appropriately?
• Are p values or confidence intervals used?
• Where statistically significant differences are found, are they sufficient to be clinically important?

• Does the discussion show an awareness of the methodological limitations of the study design? Are problems or difficulties acknowledged?
• Are the conclusions drawn justified by the results presented?
• Is a comparison drawn with other published work?
• Do the authors speculate too far beyond the evidence presented?