Research Article Critique Checklist
from Ridsdale; Practitioner, 238:108-13. 1994.
- 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?