Detailed Critique of the Article
• Background/Introduction
- Does it provide a current context?
- Does it identify and justify the reported research?
- Does it clearly state the aims of the reported research?
• Methodology
- Are the methods well described? Sufficient detail of:
* Numbers and appropriate sampling
* Appropriate controls
* Equipment/ tests used
* Quality control – pilots, calibration triangulation et.
- Do the methods appear accurate, valid and reproducible?
- Does the methodology match the aims?
- Are any limitations reported?
- Are statistics appropriate to the data?
• Results
- Are results clearly reported?
- Are figures and tables clear and helpful?
- Does the text reference and explain the figure and tables?
- Is potential error considered and reported statistically?
- Are claims of statistical significance valid?
- Are sufficient data resented to allow reader to analyse?
- Do the results provide high quality evidence?
• Discussion and conclusion
- Are the conclusions clear?
- Are the conclusions supported by the results?
- Do the conclusions have limitations? Are these reported?
- Does the critical reader draw the same conclusions?
- How do the results relate to the wider literature?
- Does the study add to or advance current knowledge?
• Abstract and title
- Do they contain key features of the content?
- Are they sufficiently specific?
• How does this article relate to other published research?

Presenting Critique of the Article
• Give some context to help audience understanding.
• Present the salient points
- What questions does the paper address?
- What are the main conclusions of the paper?
- What quality of evidence supports the conclusions?
- Do the data relate well?
- Is author interpretation appropriate?
- Why are the conclusions important?
• Be constructive
- No study is perfect, most authors are honest.
• How does this article related to other published research?

Detailed Critique of the Article • Background/Introduction - Does...