Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I wrote and published this in our state association newsletter many years ago. It was a compliation from many sources (and I apologise as I no linger have the refs for those sources) as well as a little of my experience in reviewing manuscripts prior to publication. I use it as a framework to review research. Hope someone finds it of use (I have also attached it as a .pdf).
The biggest problem called by the editors is a failure to follow the journals instructions for authors and not to follow an appropriate framework for the report.
Structure of Research Report:
Abstract Introduction what is the problem; why is it important; justify the aim with review of literature; statement of aim/purpose/hypothesis Methods study design; subject selection; measurement methods; equipment description; procedure; data collection; statistical methods Results description of statistical outcomes; tables and figures; support of reject hypothesis Discussion what statistical outcomes mean; clinical significance; relation of results to relevant literature; study strengths and weaknesses; suggestions for further work Conclusion References
Review of Research Publication
Critical appraisal is the assessment of the validity and applicability of research and the quality of methods and results, as well as the theoretical frameworks.
Title:
Is the title clear and a concise statement of the research and informative?
Is it relevant Abstract:
Is the abstract clear about the aims, methods, results, conclusions and implications?
Does the abstract make clear what the study was all about?
What is the research question being answered?
Common Problems:
Abstract too long.
Too many unnecessary words.
Information in abstract not clear or not mentioned in text.
Introduction:
Does the introduction provide an adequate context of the study?
Is the review of the relevant literature used appropriately to provide an argument that is structured leading to the reasons for conducting research? Does the review justify the aims?
Is the research problem narrowed down to a researchable problem?
Why is the problem important?
Are the aims or hypothesis or research question of the study clear?
At the end of the introduction, do you know what its all about?
Common Problems:
Excessive amount of background information.
Need for study poorly justified.
Nothing new.
Too long.
Insignificant research question.
Off little clinical interest.
Lack of a clear statement of the problem.
Inadequate description of the aims/objectives.
Methods:
Has the design been properly described are they designed to answer the research question?
Is it made clear why the particular design was chosen?
Are source of error controlled for or acknowledged?
Is the sample size appropriate?
How are subjects selected?
Who are the subjects?
Is the sample properly selected and described?
Who is or is not included and why? What is the inclusion and exclusion criteria?
Are there any sources of bias or error in the sample or in the method by which they were selected? Could this impact on the studys outcome?
What is evidence for true random selection rather than systematic or volunteer self selection?
What are the possible sources of bias in the selection of subjects?
Is any mechanical apparatus used clearly described?
Are any questionnaires, scales etc that were used adequately described?
Were questionnaires adequately tested and suitable for the purposes that they were used?
Is the description of procedures absolutely clear?
Are instructions given to subjects clearly described?
Was the data collection method clearly described and appropriate?
Can this study be replicated based on the description?
Method of randomisation described? Blindness of subjects?
Outcomes blindly assessment?
Common problems:
Insufficient detail or too much unnecessary detail.
Poor study design.
Biased data collection.
Non-random sample.
Inadequate description of procedures.
Inadequate justification for choice of statistical test(s).
Inappropriate statistical test (eg parametric test on data not normally distributed)
Results:
Are graphs and tables clear, self-explanatory, clearly labelled and useful?
Are statistical tests used the correct ones?
Does the text of this section state the facts without interpretation?
Is the p value clearly stated?
Are confident intervals used?
Information provided about subjects loss to follow up.
Is there sufficient data provided that the treatment and control group was similar before treatments were applied?
Is there any information on the reliability of the measurements used?
Common problems:
Presenting data in an ambiguous manner
Poorly organised
Inadequate information on participants/subjects
Presenting insufficient data for reader to make own conclusions
Results not answering research question
Exact p values not provided
Using standard error of the mean rather than standard deviation for variability of the data
No statement that the assumption of the statistical test used met
Confidence intervals not used when appropriate
Interval comments made (should be in discussion)
Inappropriate adjustments made to statistics when multiple hypotheses are being tested
Using statistical test that are used wrongly assume independence when repeated measures are done on the same subjects.
Discussions/Conclusion:
Are the results and conclusions clearly stated?
Are the conclusions logical and valid?
Are the results related to the other research in the area?
Are any statements of fact properly referenced from prior research?
Is the discussion related sufficiently to the introduction and research question?
Are any assumptions reasonable?
How generalisable are the results?
Is there a coherent theoretical explanation for the studys results?
Are the results interpreted fully/correctly/selectively/extravagantly?
Are any flaws or shortcomings in the design of the research highlighted?
Are the practical ramifications of the results discussed?
Common problems:
Lack consciousness and organisation
Results may be compared to other publications that are favourable to the authors interpretation
All of the factors that may explain results may not have been considered
Too many irrelevant issues discussed
Unexplained inconsistencies
Not acknowledging methodological flaws
Inflated view of the importance of the findings
Unsupported/unfounded conclusions
Over interpretation of the data
Failure to place the results in the context of the relevant literature ant the introduction
Recommendations for further research not related to outcome of current project
Too long/wordy
Used colloquialisms, clichιs and euphemisms
Conclusions make statements not mentioned in discussion
Conclusions inappropriately based on the results.
References:
Is each reference quoted listed in the reference section?
Do the references give all the information necessary to check them?
Common problems:
References missing
Overall:
Is the write up clear and appropriately structured?
Is the writing style appropriate?
Was the research question worth asking in the first place?
Has an adequate attempt been made to answer the research question?
__________________
Craig Payne
Department of Podiatry
La Trobe University
Melbourne, Australia http://www.latrobe.edu.au/podiatry
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
The views expressed above are those of the author and not that of La Trobe University This is where I am, where are you?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Craig Payne For This Useful Post:
Me thinks Craig has been watching the old episodes of the English farce with the English spy and a poor french policeman's accent?
"It was a compliation from many sources (and I apologise as I no linger have the refs for those sources).
I can't recall when I posted this, but it was either at 2.00AM (watching the Tour de France) or earlier when one of the Arena'ettes was sick on me .... so typo's happen.
__________________
Craig Payne
Department of Podiatry
La Trobe University
Melbourne, Australia http://www.latrobe.edu.au/podiatry
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
The views expressed above are those of the author and not that of La Trobe University This is where I am, where are you?
I can't recall when I posted this, but it was either at 2.00AM (watching the Tour de France) or earlier when one of the Arena'ettes was sick on me .... so typo's happen.
Craig, whenyou are critically appraising a piece, do you have a published critical appraisal tool that you prefer, such as PEDro or MINORS?
Actually, the title of this thread is probably misleading ... I use any number of documents (eg PEDro) for a critical appraisal (and have no real preference and what I could end up doing is a mismatch of many) ...what I posted above is somewhat different in that what I developed is more for the pre-publication review of a manuscript.
__________________
Craig Payne
Department of Podiatry
La Trobe University
Melbourne, Australia http://www.latrobe.edu.au/podiatry
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________ God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things - right now I am so far behind, I will never die.
The views expressed above are those of the author and not that of La Trobe University This is where I am, where are you?
Last edited by Craig Payne : 21st July 2008 at 09:56 PM.
Reason: bloody typos
Picked this up from Diabetologia: What does an Editor look for?
Quote:
The first task of an Editor is to look for good papers. Really good papers are few and far between, so most of an Editor’s time is spent looking at papers that are not as good as they might be, and trying to make them better. Inevitably, there comes a borderline between those papers that we can consider for publication, and those that we must turn away – 80% in the case of this journal. Contrary to what most authors seem to believe, we are not looking for reasons to reject a manuscript: we are looking for reasons why we should accept it. An enormous amount of work has gone into many of the papers we receive, and is often wasted because the authors have not followed some simple rules. Here are some suggestions:
Think before you do the study
No amount of eminence or presentational skill will conceal the fact that you have not read the literature carefully, asked the right question, planned the right experiment, used the right methods, studied a sufficient number of subjects, analysed your results correctly, and drawn sensible conclusions.
Think before you write
Your message should contain something that is new, and something that is interesting
A paper should have a message, a message that you could write out in two or three sentences, or explain to a friend over the phone. This message should contain something that is new, and something that is interesting.
Decide who you are writing for
Always remember that you are addressing morons
“Always remember that you are addressing morons,” David Pyke used to say, “or in the case of an international audience, foreign morons!” My own advice is to write for a sensible and intelligent reader who is unfamiliar with the subject area: the trick is to convey basic information without making it too obvious that you are doing so.
Tell me a story
A paper should have a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning says why you did the study, the middle says what you did, and the end says what you found and why it matters.
The Abstract
The usual mistake is to write the abstract as a hasty afterthought. Write it before you start: it will then tell you what to put in the paper and what to leave out.
The Introduction
This is a key element in the story: its purpose is to orientate your readers and to make them want to read the rest of the paper. Anything else is superfluous, which is why introductions should always be short.
The Methods
The “cut and paste” facility on a word processor is the downfall of most methods sections. If the methods have been published in full elsewhere, there is no need to repeat them in any detail. Concentrate on what is new, or potentially contentious. Then ask someone from another lab to check it through. Could they could repeat the study on the basis of the information you provide?
The Analysis
This is typically the bit that the senior author does not understand. At worst, an inexperienced junior researcher is let loose upon a statistics package. Plan the analysis before you undertake the study, and design the study around the analysis. Always ask for professional advice. If you are lucky enough to find a statistician who can communicate with the non-numerate and is of the opposite sex, you should consider a proposal of marriage. It’s that important.
The Results
Believe it or not, many people actually read this section. Scary but true. Logic, clarity of presentation and relevance to the story are what count.
Six Authors in Search of a Message
This, with apologies to Pirandello, is what we find in many of the discussion sections we receive. Readers look at the discussion. It should contain your message. If it is aimless and rambling, what does that say about you?
Remember:
Do not paste this section in from the junior author’s thesis
Make sure that the senior authors have read it
One point per paragraph
No more than 5 or 6 paragraphs
Structure your discussion as suggested by the British Medical Journal:
statement of principal findings
strengths and weaknesses of the study
strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing important differences in results
meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications for clinicians and policymakers
unanswered questions and future research.
The Reference List
Any idiot can cite 50 papers, but the intelligent mention only those that are relevant, and may even have consulted them. This is why good manuscripts usually have short reference lists. And remember that the people you cite may referee your paper - misquote them at your peril!
Illustrations
A good illustration can convey the central message of a paper at a glance
The eye rules the brain, and a good illustration can convey the central message of a paper at a glance. The best diagrams get shown time and again in review lectures, while papers with no visual content tend to get forgotten. Illustrations that need half a page of explanation are no use to anyone.
Revise your paper
Strike out any phrase you consider particularly clever
Pick up a marker pen and strike out the following:
Adjectives
“Soft” qualifiers (eg. slightly more, somewhat less etc)
Any word that can be lost without changing the meaning of a sentence
Any sentence that can be lost without changing the meaning of a paragraph
Any statement that does not form an essential part of the story
Any inference that goes too far
Any phrase that you consider particularly clever
If your paper is not 25% shorter, go back and start again.
Show the paper to a colleague
It’s no use asking for advice if you’re not going to take it
'People ask you for criticism, but they only want praise.' Anyone who praises the first draft of a manuscript is either terminally polite, a fool or a liar. Or they think you are. Never mind, the important thing is that you have now seen the paper through another pair of eyes. Make all the changes they suggest; it’s no use asking for advice if you’re not going to take it.
Incubate your manuscript
Place in a desk drawer at room temperature for two weeks. Fortify yourself with a glass of wine before you take it out: it won’t be as good as you thought it was.
Hold a paper surgery
This should be routine in good groups. All papers in development are tabled each week and dissected without mercy. Follow the Belisarius principle (he was a Byzantine general), ask the most junior person present to express an opinion and then work up in order of seniority. People may be shy and inhibited to begin with, but once you have found fault with everyone else’s manuscript they will be only too eager to comment on yours.
Choose your journal
Be realistic, or you will waste everyone’s time.
Is this the sort of paper they publish? Is there some reason (other than impact factor) why it is most appropriate? Be realistic, or you will waste everyone’s time.
Read the Instructions to Authors
Surprisingly few authors bother to read the Instructions to Authors. We don’t object if you submit your paper in the wrong format. If it matters so little to you, we can assume that you will not take offence if we decide not to accept your manuscript. British authors are however advised not to submit a paper with American spelling; it’s a clear sign that your paper has just made an unsuccessful trip across the Atlantic.
Write a covering letter to the Editor
It is prudent to get the name of the journal right
We read these letters, so it is prudent to get the name of the journal right. Tell the Editor why you think his (her) readers might be interested in this manuscript. As in any flirtation, do not come on too strongly. Suggest more than you show, and avoid exaggerated claims. Editors, by the way, are unimpressed by claims of priority (“we are the first group ever to show that the effect of A upon B is inhibited by C in the presence of D in the female kangaroo”). And please, do not mention that the career of the first author absolutely depends upon acceptance of this manuscript, or that her husband is unaware that she is carrying your baby. An Editor has no heart.
Critical appraisal of research publications
:
Linear Mode
