The ability to understand and analyse a research paper and decide whether it should change your clinical practice is a key skill in providing evidence-based medicine. As GPs, we need to stay abreast of the latest developments in medical research across all disciplines by appraising evidence that is presented to us in a critical and efficient manner. This article aims to refresh your knowledge of statistics and study design, explain the process of critical appraisal, and present resources that can assist you in analysing research articles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GoldacreB.HeneghanC. (2014) Improving, and auditing, access to clinical trial results. British Medical Journal15(348): g213–g213. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g213.
2.
GreenhalghT. (1997) How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers. British Medical Journal315(7103): 305–308. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7103.305.
3.
Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M., Oxman, A. D., & Dickersin, K. (2009). Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, art. no.: MR000006. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3.
4.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine6(7): doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Von ElmE.AltmanD. G.EggerM.PocockS. J.GotzscheP. C.VandenbrouckeJ. P. (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine147: 573–577. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010.
