example of a critical evaluation of a research article

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Critical evaluation of publications

N gopi chander.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Address for correspondence: Dr. N. Gopi Chander, Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, SRM Dental College, SRM University, Chennai - 600 089, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 2020 Nov 30; Accepted 2020 Dec 16; Issue date 2021 Jan-Mar.

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Critical evaluation is the process of examining the research for the strength or weakness of the findings, validity, relevance, and usefulness of the research findings.[ 1 ] The availability of extensive information and the difficulty in differentiating the relevant information obligate the primary need of critical appraisal. In addition, it establishes superior evidence and increases the application to clinical practice.[ 2 ] More importantly, it differentiates between significant and/or insignificant data in the literature and aids in providing the updated information. The purpose of critical appraisal shall help in informed decision and improve the quality of healthcare provided to patients.[ 1 , 2 , 3 ]

The research data have three possible outcomes – true findings, random variation that occurs due to chance, and biased results due to systematic error.[ 4 ] The true findings can be of positive or negative results, but it shall be highly recognized. The random error or actual result deviation occurs due to the uncontrollable factors such as smaller sample size and confounding factors. The random error does not alter the measured value, but it is an imperfect error caused due to study design inconsistencies. These errors are unpredictable and cannot be repeated again by repeating the analysis. The biased results are deliberate deviation in the study design, methodology, or investigations. The deviations in the result can be due to poor designing, to the methodology, or in the analysis. It will be difficult to differentiate these findings without critical analysis of the literature.[ 5 , 6 ]

There are various guidelines and tools proposed to critically evaluate the literature.[ 7 , 8 , 9 ] Since the scientific literature is in constant evolution, no one guidelines or checklist is considered to be gold standard. Moreover, the appraisal varies with the type of research. The checklist provided by various organizations for designing or structuring manuscripts - case report, reviews, and original research - cannot be combined or generalized for use. Similarly, it varies with the types of study design - randomized clinical trials and observational studies –case–control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies. The methodological guidelines such as consort statements, CARE guidelines, PROSPERO, or Cochrane checklists can significantly aid in the evaluation of different types of research data.[ 10 ] The structured approach and checklists provided by the organizations can be a valuable aid to conduct research as well as critically evaluate the manuscripts. In addition to the guidelines, the simplified checklists proposed by Young and Solomon can be of adjuvant tool in critical assessment of the literature.[ 1 ] It consists of 10 simple rules. That includes relevance of study question, new information to existing literature, type of research question, appropriateness of study design, bias appraisal, adherence of study protocol, hypothesis testing, check or estimation of statistical analysis, validation of conclusion, and identification of conflicts of interest. These checklists along with updated methodological guidelines for different types of study designs can be a valuable tool for critical appraisal of the literature.[ 1 , 10 ]

Most of the tools assess the validity, reliability, bias, and clinical application of the research data. The validity aids in determining the accuracy of the results, and the reliability establishes the consistency of the results. The bias is systemic deviation of results. The bias is of many types: it can be of from the initiation of the study to manuscript publication. Various assessment tools have been proposed to determine the bias. More commonly employed are the GRADE, Grade pro, Newcastle Ottawa, jaded, ROB 2, and ARRIVE 2.[ 11 ] The bias tools vary with the type of study design, and it is significant to use the appropriate tool. The tools assess and grade the quality of bias in the manuscript. These tools are majorly used for evaluating randomized control trial employed for systematic review and meta-analysis but can be suitably employed to different study designs. These tools provide the grading of bias and provide useful data that are essential for clinical application.[ 11 , 12 ]

Rapid appraisal can be done with merit trials/rapid critical appraisal tool.[ 6 ] It is a compressed tool that basically assesses on the validity, reliability, and clinical use of the study. This is a simplified checklist for quicker assessment; however, for more accurate assessment, it is essential to appraise the entire manuscript from introduction till the conclusion. This mandates a detailed check for every component of the literature in accordance to the standard guidelines. In addition, the journal indexing and metrics can play a significant role in estimation. Higher metric journal shall possess more rigorous peer-review process that reduces the significant errors in the manuscript.[ 3 , 4 ]

The major contents to be generally assessed in the introduction of the manuscript are type and contents of research question, justification of purpose/background of the study with articles published in the last 5 years, or older articles that possess significant influences, citations of peer-reviewed journal, defined objective, and hypothesis statement. In methodology, the parameter of appraisal parameters should be on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, care in reduction of bias, following the acceptable procedures, control on confounding variables, and valid outcome measures. The result section should be checked for the subject and baseline - demographic, relevant statistical tests, and statistical significance. The discussion should possess adequate literature substantiation for results, study limitations, and declarations on conflicts of interest.[ 6 ]

In the prosthodontic literature, extensive reports of similar nature exist; critical analysis of the literature is a necessary skill to be mastered by researchers and clinicians.[ 10 ] It helps clinicians to make quality evidenced healthcare decisions by extensive evaluation of the literature.

• 1. Young JM, Solomon MJ. How to critically appraise an article. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6:82–91. doi: 10.1038/ncpgasthep1331. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. du Prel JB, Röhrig B, Blettner M. Critical appraisal of scientific articles: Part 1 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106:100–5. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0100. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:305–10. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Mhaskar R, Emmanuel P, Mishra S, Patel S, Naik E, Kumar A. Critical appraisal skills are essential to informed decision-making. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2009;30:112–9. doi: 10.4103/2589-0557.62770. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Ackley BJ, Swan BA, Ladwig G, Tucker S. Evidence-based Nursing care Guidelines: Medical-surgical Interventions. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 7. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Fineout-Overholt E, Melnyk BM, Stillwell SB, Williamson KM. Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: digging deeper–examining the “keeper” studies. Am J Nurs. 2010;110:41–8. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2015;8:2–10. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Buccheri RK, Sharifi C. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2017;14:463–72. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12258. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Abt E, Bader JD, Bonetti D. A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: Translating research into clinical practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2012;143:386–90. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0181. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Chander NG. Evidence based research in prosthodontics. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16:113. doi: 10.4103/0972-4052.179316. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: What are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. 2020;7:7. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: An introduction. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6:50–4. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12018. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (464.8 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article

1. identify how and why the research was carried out, 2. establish the research context, 3. evaluate the research, 4. establish the significance of the research.

• Writing Your Critique

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

Get assistance

The library offers a range of helpful services.  All of our appointments are free of charge and confidential.

• Book an appointment

Read the article(s) carefully and use the questions below to help you identify how and why the research was carried out. Look at the following sections: 

Introduction

• What was the objective of the study?
• What methods were used to accomplish this purpose (e.g., systematic recording of observations, analysis and evaluation of published research, assessment of theory, etc.)?
• What techniques were used and how was each technique performed?
• What kind of data can be obtained using each technique?
• How are such data interpreted?
• What kind of information is produced by using the technique?
• What objective evidence was obtained from the authors’ efforts (observations, measurements, etc.)?
• What were the results of the study? 
• How was each technique used to obtain each result?
• What statistical tests were used to evaluate the significance of the conclusions based on numeric or graphic data?
• How did each result contribute to answering the question or testing the hypothesis raised in the introduction?
• How were the results interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (authors’ view of evidence rather than objective findings)? 
• Were the authors able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised?
• Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the field, or a new research technique?
• How was the significance of the work described?
• Do the authors relate the findings of the study to literature in the field?
• Did the reported observations or interpretations support or refute observations or interpretations made by other researchers?

These questions were adapted from the following sources:  Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.

Once you are familiar with the article, you can establish the research context by asking the following questions:

• Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
• When and where was the research conducted?
• Why did the authors do this research?
• Was this research pertinent only within the authors’ geographic locale, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
• Were many other laboratories pursuing related research when the reported work was done? If so, why?
• For experimental research, what funding sources met the costs of the research?
• On what prior observations was the research based? What was and was not known at the time?
• How important was the research question posed by the researchers?

These questions were adapted from the following sources: Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.

Remember that simply disagreeing with the material is not considered to be a critical assessment of the material.  For example, stating that the sample size is insufficient is not a critical assessment.  Describing why the sample size is insufficient for the claims being made in the study would be a critical assessment.

Use the questions below to help you evaluate the quality of the authors’ research:

• Does the title precisely state the subject of the paper?
• Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in the introduction?

Acknowledgments

• Could the source of the research funding have influenced the research topic or conclusions?
• Check the sequence of statements in the introduction. Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
• Review all methods in relation to the objective(s) of the study. Are the methods valid for studying the problem?
• Check the methods for essential information. Could the study be duplicated from the methods and information given?
• Check the methods for flaws. Is the sample selection adequate? Is the experimental design sound?
• Check the sequence of statements in the methods. Does all the information belong there? Is the sequence of methods clear and pertinent?
• Was there mention of ethics? Which research ethics board approved the study?
• Carefully examine the data presented in the tables and diagrams. Does the title or legend accurately describe the content? 
• Are column headings and labels accurate? 
• Are the data organized for ready comparison and interpretation? (A table should be self-explanatory, with a title that accurately and concisely describes content and column headings that accurately describe information in the cells.)
• Review the results as presented in the text while referring to the data in the tables and diagrams. Does the text complement, and not simply repeat data? Are there discrepancies between the results in the text and those in the tables?
• Check all calculations and presentation of data.
• Review the results in light of the stated objectives. Does the study reveal what the researchers intended?
• Does the discussion clearly address the objectives and hypotheses?
• Check the interpretation against the results. Does the discussion merely repeat the results? 
• Does the interpretation arise logically from the data or is it too far-fetched? 
• Have the faults, flaws, or shortcomings of the research been addressed?
• Is the interpretation supported by other research cited in the study?
• Does the study consider key studies in the field?
• What is the significance of the research? Do the authors mention wider implications of the findings?
• Is there a section on recommendations for future research? Are there other research possibilities or directions suggested? 

Consider the article as a whole

• Reread the abstract. Does it accurately summarize the article?
• Check the structure of the article (first headings and then paragraphing). Is all the material organized under the appropriate headings? Are sections divided logically into subsections or paragraphs?
• Are stylistic concerns, logic, clarity, and economy of expression addressed?

These questions were adapted from the following sources:  Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site. Retrieved July 31, 2006.

After you have evaluated the research, consider whether the research has been successful. Has it led to new questions being asked, or new ways of using existing knowledge? Are other researchers citing this paper?

You should consider the following questions:

• How did other researchers view the significance of the research reported by your authors?
• Did the research reported in your article result in the formulation of new questions or hypotheses (by the authors or by other researchers)?
• Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
• Did the research make a significant contribution to human knowledge?
• Did the research produce any practical applications?
• What are the social, political, technological, medical implications of this research?
• How do you evaluate the significance of the research?

To answer these questions, look at review articles to find out how reviewers view this piece of research. Look at research articles and databases like Web of Science to see how other people have used this work. What range of journals have cited this article?

These questions were adapted from the following sources:

Kuyper, B.J. (1991). Bringing up scientists in the art of critiquing research. Bioscience 41(4), 248-250. Wood, J.M. (2003). Research Lab Guide. MICR*3260 Microbial Adaptation and Development Web Site . Retrieved July 31, 2006.

• << Previous: Start Here
• Next: Writing Your Critique >>
• Last Updated: Sep 5, 2024 10:47 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/WriteCriticalReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The Tech Edvocate

• Advertisement
• Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
• Home Page Four
• Home Page Three
• Home Page Two
• Icons [No Sidebar]
• Left Sidbear Page
• Lynch Educational Consulting
• My Speaking Page
• Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
• Newsletter Unsubscription
• Page Example
• Privacy Policy
• Protected Content
• Request a Product Review
• Shortcodes Examples
• Terms and Conditions
• The Edvocate
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• Write For Us
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Assistive Technology
• Child Development Tech
• Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
• EdTech Futures
• EdTech News
• EdTech Policy & Reform
• EdTech Startups & Businesses
• Higher Education EdTech
• Online Learning & eLearning
• Parent & Family Tech
• Personalized Learning
• Product Reviews
• Tech Edvocate Awards
• School Ratings

We Asked Minimalists Their Best Tips for Decluttering—They All Agreed on One Thing

10 best linux mint themes for everyone, the 10 all-time best charismatic performances by a leading male actor, your best hair days with deep wave bundles: how to achieve effortless, my best online shopping tips – merrick’s art, best things to do for adults and kids in vista, california, best things to do for adults and kids in renton, washington, 9 best resistance band exercises for love handles, best things to do for adults and kids in lawton, oklahoma, 36 best gift ideas for your swiftie-loving friends, how to write an article review (with sample reviews)  .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

4 Ways to Access Photos on iCloud

3 ways to become a locksmith, how to cancel amazon prime, 3 ways to recover from a herniated disk, how to wire wrap stones, how to transport cut flowers: 10 steps.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 20 January 2009

How to critically appraise an article

• Jane M Young 1 &
• Michael J Solomon 2  

Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology volume  6 ,  pages 82–91 ( 2009 ) Cite this article

53k Accesses

99 Citations

426 Altmetric

Metrics details

Critical appraisal is a systematic process used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a research article in order to assess the usefulness and validity of research findings. The most important components of a critical appraisal are an evaluation of the appropriateness of the study design for the research question and a careful assessment of the key methodological features of this design. Other factors that also should be considered include the suitability of the statistical methods used and their subsequent interpretation, potential conflicts of interest and the relevance of the research to one's own practice. This Review presents a 10-step guide to critical appraisal that aims to assist clinicians to identify the most relevant high-quality studies available to guide their clinical practice.

Critical appraisal is a systematic process used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a research article

Critical appraisal provides a basis for decisions on whether to use the results of a study in clinical practice

Different study designs are prone to various sources of systematic bias

Design-specific, critical-appraisal checklists are useful tools to help assess study quality

Assessments of other factors, including the importance of the research question, the appropriateness of statistical analysis, the legitimacy of conclusions and potential conflicts of interest are an important part of the critical appraisal process

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Making sense of the literature: an introduction to critical appraisal for the primary care practitioner

How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 2: systematic reviews and meta-analyses

How to appraise the literature: basic principles for the busy clinician - part 1: randomised controlled trials

Druss BG and Marcus SC (2005) Growth and decentralisation of the medical literature: implications for evidence-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc 93 : 499–501

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Glasziou PP (2008) Information overload: what's behind it, what's beyond it? Med J Aust 189 : 84–85

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Last JE (Ed.; 2001) A Dictionary of Epidemiology (4th Edn). New York: Oxford University Press

Google Scholar  

Sackett DL et al . (2000). Evidence-based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM . London: Churchill Livingstone

Guyatt G and Rennie D (Eds; 2002). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: a Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice . Chicago: American Medical Association

Greenhalgh T (2000) How to Read a Paper: the Basics of Evidence-based Medicine . London: Blackwell Medicine Books

MacAuley D (1994) READER: an acronym to aid critical reading by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 44 : 83–85

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hill A and Spittlehouse C (2001) What is critical appraisal. Evidence-based Medicine 3 : 1–8 [ http://www.evidence-based-medicine.co.uk ] (accessed 25 November 2008)

Public Health Resource Unit (2008) Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) . [ http://www.phru.nhs.uk/Pages/PHD/CASP.htm ] (accessed 8 August 2008)

National Health and Medical Research Council (2000) How to Review the Evidence: Systematic Identification and Review of the Scientific Literature . Canberra: NHMRC

Elwood JM (1998) Critical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials (2nd Edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2002) Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence? Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 47, Publication No 02-E019 Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Crombie IK (1996) The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal: a Handbook for Health Care Professionals . London: Blackwell Medicine Publishing Group

Heller RF et al . (2008) Critical appraisal for public health: a new checklist. Public Health 122 : 92–98

Article   Google Scholar  

MacAuley D et al . (1998) Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice. BMJ 316 : 1134–37

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Parkes J et al . Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 3. Art. No.: cd001270. 10.1002/14651858.cd001270

Mays N and Pope C (2000) Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 320 : 50–52

Hawking SW (2003) On the Shoulders of Giants: the Great Works of Physics and Astronomy . Philadelphia, PN: Penguin

National Health and Medical Research Council (1999) A Guide to the Development, Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines . Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council

US Preventive Services Taskforce (1996) Guide to clinical preventive services (2nd Edn). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins

Solomon MJ and McLeod RS (1995) Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery 118 : 456–467

Rothman KJ (2002) Epidemiology: an Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press

Young JM and Solomon MJ (2003) Improving the evidence-base in surgery: sources of bias in surgical studies. ANZ J Surg 73 : 504–506

Margitic SE et al . (1995) Lessons learned from a prospective meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 43 : 435–439

Shea B et al . (2001) Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUORUM statement compared to other tools. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context 2nd Edition, 122–139 (Eds Egger M. et al .) London: BMJ Books

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Easterbrook PH et al . (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337 : 867–872

Begg CB and Berlin JA (1989) Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst 81 : 107–115

Moher D et al . (2000) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Br J Surg 87 : 1448–1454

Shea BJ et al . (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 7 : 10 [10.1186/1471-2288-7-10]

Stroup DF et al . (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283 : 2008–2012

Young JM and Solomon MJ (2003) Improving the evidence-base in surgery: evaluating surgical effectiveness. ANZ J Surg 73 : 507–510

Schulz KF (1995) Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA 274 : 1456–1458

Schulz KF et al . (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273 : 408–412

Moher D et al . (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology 1 : 2 [ http://www.biomedcentral.com/ 1471-2288/1/2 ] (accessed 25 November 2008)

Rochon PA et al . (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 1. Role and design. BMJ 330 : 895–897

Mamdani M et al . (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 2. Assessing potential for confounding. BMJ 330 : 960–962

Normand S et al . (2005) Reader's guide to critical appraisal of cohort studies: 3. Analytical strategies to reduce confounding. BMJ 330 : 1021–1023

von Elm E et al . (2007) Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335 : 806–808

Sutton-Tyrrell K (1991) Assessing bias in case-control studies: proper selection of cases and controls. Stroke 22 : 938–942

Knottnerus J (2003) Assessment of the accuracy of diagnostic tests: the cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 56 : 1118–1128

Furukawa TA and Guyatt GH (2006) Sources of bias in diagnostic accuracy studies and the diagnostic process. CMAJ 174 : 481–482

Bossyut PM et al . (2003)The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 138 : W1–W12

STARD statement (Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). [ http://www.stard-statement.org/ ] (accessed 10 September 2008)

Raftery J (1998) Economic evaluation: an introduction. BMJ 316 : 1013–1014

Palmer S et al . (1999) Economics notes: types of economic evaluation. BMJ 318 : 1349

Russ S et al . (1999) Barriers to participation in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 52 : 1143–1156

Tinmouth JM et al . (2004) Are claims of equivalency in digestive diseases trials supported by the evidence? Gastroentrology 126 : 1700–1710

Kaul S and Diamond GA (2006) Good enough: a primer on the analysis and interpretation of noninferiority trials. Ann Intern Med 145 : 62–69

Piaggio G et al . (2006) Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 295 : 1152–1160

Heritier SR et al . (2007) Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention to treat principle. In Interpreting and Reporting Clinical Trials: a Guide to the CONSORT Statement and the Principles of Randomized Controlled Trials , 92–98 (Eds Keech A. et al .) Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian Medical Publishing Company

National Health and Medical Research Council (2007) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 89–90 Canberra: NHMRC

Lo B et al . (2000) Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 343 : 1616–1620

Kim SYH et al . (2004) Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interests. J Med Ethics 30 : 73–79

Komesaroff PA and Kerridge IH (2002) Ethical issues concerning the relationships between medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry. Med J Aust 176 : 118–121

Little M (1999) Research, ethics and conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics 25 : 259–262

Lemmens T and Singer PA (1998) Bioethics for clinicians: 17. Conflict of interest in research, education and patient care. CMAJ 159 : 960–965

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

JM Young is an Associate Professor of Public Health and the Executive Director of the Surgical Outcomes Research Centre at the University of Sydney and Sydney South-West Area Health Service, Sydney,

Jane M Young

MJ Solomon is Head of the Surgical Outcomes Research Centre and Director of Colorectal Research at the University of Sydney and Sydney South-West Area Health Service, Sydney, Australia.,

Michael J Solomon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jane M Young .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Young, J., Solomon, M. How to critically appraise an article. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 6 , 82–91 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep1331

Download citation

Received : 10 August 2008

Accepted : 03 November 2008

Published : 20 January 2009

Issue Date : February 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpgasthep1331

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

We’re reviewing our resources this fall (September-December 2024). We will do our best to minimize disruption, but you might notice changes over the next few months as we correct errors & delete redundant resources. 

Critical Analysis and Evaluation

Many assignments ask you to   critique   and   evaluate   a source. Sources might include journal articles, books, websites, government documents, portfolios, podcasts, or presentations.

When you   critique,   you offer both negative and positive analysis of the content, writing, and structure of a source.

When   you   evaluate , you assess how successful a source is at presenting information, measured against a standard or certain criteria.

Elements of a critical analysis:

opinion + evidence from the article + justification

Your   opinion   is your thoughtful reaction to the piece.

Evidence from the article  offers some proof to back up your opinion.

The   justification   is an explanation of how you arrived at your opinion or why you think it’s true.

How do you critique and evaluate?

When critiquing and evaluating someone else’s writing/research, your purpose is to reach an   informed opinion   about a source. In order to do that, try these three steps:

• How do you feel?
• What surprised you?
• What left you confused?
• What pleased or annoyed you?
• What was interesting?
• What is the purpose of this text?
• Who is the intended audience?
• What kind of bias is there?
• What was missing?
• See our resource on analysis and synthesis ( Move From Research to Writing: How to Think ) for other examples of questions to ask.
• sophisticated
• interesting
• undocumented
• disorganized
• superficial
• unconventional
• inappropriate interpretation of evidence
• unsound or discredited methodology
• traditional
• unsubstantiated
• unsupported
• well-researched
• easy to understand
• Opinion : This article’s assessment of the power balance in cities is   confusing.
• Evidence:   It first says that the power to shape policy is evenly distributed among citizens, local government, and business (Rajal, 232).
• Justification :  but then it goes on to focus almost exclusively on business. Next, in a much shorter section, it combines the idea of citizens and local government into a single point of evidence. This leaves the reader with the impression that the citizens have no voice at all. It is   not helpful   in trying to determine the role of the common voter in shaping public policy.  

Sample criteria for critical analysis

Sometimes the assignment will specify what criteria to use when critiquing and evaluating a source. If not, consider the following prompts to approach your analysis. Choose the questions that are most suitable for your source.

• What do you think about the quality of the research? Is it significant?
• Did the author answer the question they set out to? Did the author prove their thesis?
• Did you find contradictions to other things you know?
• What new insight or connections did the author make?
• How does this piece fit within the context of your course, or the larger body of research in the field?
• The structure of an article or book is often dictated by standards of the discipline or a theoretical model. Did the piece meet those standards?
• Did the piece meet the needs of the intended audience?
• Was the material presented in an organized and logical fashion?
• Is the argument cohesive and convincing? Is the reasoning sound? Is there enough evidence?
• Is it easy to read? Is it clear and easy to understand, even if the concepts are sophisticated?