Rangachari, P. K., & Mierson, S. (1995). A checklist to help students analyze published articles in basic medical sciences. Advances in Physiology Education, 268(6 Pt 3), S21-5. (APA style)
APPENDIX: Critical Evaluation of a Published Paper (Rangachari, 1995, S24-S25)
The report should consist of a critical evaluation of the objectives of the study, the methods used, the results, and the conclusions. To help you, we have developed a checklist that follows closely the format of a scientific report, which is conventionally divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results, Discussion, a list of References, and a short Abstract or summary.
1. Did the authors indicate why the study was undertaken?
2. Was the background information provided adequate to undestand the aims of the study?
1) Were the methods described in sufficient detail for others to repeat or extend the study?
2) If standard methods were used, were adequate references given?
3) If methods were modified, were the modifications described carefully?
4) Have the authors indicated the reasons why particular procedures were used?
5) Have the authors indicated clearly the potential problems with the methods used?
6) Have the authors indicated the limitations of the methods used?
7) Have the sources of the drugs been given?
8) Have the authors specified the statistical procedures used?
9) Are the statistical methods used appropriate?
1) Were the experiments done appropriate with respect to objectives of the study?
2) Do the results obtained make sense?
3) Do the legends to the figures describe clearly the data obtained?
4) Are the data presented in tabular form clear?
5) Are the legends to the tables clear?
6) Has appropriate statistical analysis been performed on the data?
1) Were the objectives of the study met?
2) Do the authors discuss their results in relation to available information?
3) Do the authors indulge in needless speculation?
4) If the results obtained were statistically significant, were they also biologically significant?
5) If the objectives were not met, do the authors have any explanation?
6) Do the authors adequately interpret their data?
7) Do the authors discuss the limitations of the methods used?
8) Do the authors discuss only data presented or do they refer consistently to unpublished work?
1) Do the authors cite appropriate papers for comments made?
2) Do the authors cite their own publications needlessly?
1) Is the abstract intelligible?