|
"Soulcatcher" by Martin Oliver Intellectual property agreement Class Evaluation
|
EPI 538 / NUTR 538 Fall Quarter 2012 Nutritional Epidemiology |
|
Discussions |
|
|
- Whole class reads assigned papers and participates actively in the discussion. - Small group develops draft discussion questions that it proposes to use to lead the discussion in class. These should be sent to the course director and the instructor two days in advance. - Course Director and or Instructor review draft discussion questions, make edits as necessary and return edited list to the small group the day before class. - Each member of small group prepares informal critique of the assigned paper (for their use), and a couple of discussion questions which they will use to lead that part of the discussion. - Discussion proceeds with each member of the group in their pre-arranged order. The first discussant should present the paper, or a portion of it, using the critique. - All parts of the paper should be presented using the critique in the course of the discussion. - All the discussion questions that have been prepared should be introduced and the discussion led by the person submitting the questions.
Considerations for Critique: Elements to Consider in Critiquing a ManuscriptAdapted form Dr. David D. Rudstein’s outline that appeared in “Statistics in Medicine” Theodore Colton ScD, 1974, Boston, Little Brown & Co.
I. Research question a. What are the objectives of the study? b. What is the population to which the investigators intend to refer their findings?
II. Study design a. Was this an experiment, planned observation, or secondary analysis of a study? b. How was the sample selected? Are there possible sources of selection which would make the sample atypical or nonrepresentative? c. What is the nature of the control group or standard of comparison?
III. Measurement issues a. Are there clear definitions of the terms used, including diagnostic criteria, measurements made and criteria of outcome? b. Was the method of classification or of measurement consistent for all the participants and relevant to the objectives of the investigation? c. Are the observations reliable and reproducible?
IV. Presentation of findings a. Are the findings presented clearly, objectively and in sufficient detail to enable the reader to judge them for him/herself? b. Are the findings internally consistent, i.e. do the numbers add up properly, can the different tables be reconciled etc.?
V. Analysis a. Are the data worthy of statistical analysis? If so, are the methods of statistical analysis appropriate to the source and nature of the data and is the analysis correctly performed and interpreted? b. Is there sufficient analysis to determine whether “significant differences” may in fact be due to lack of comparability of the groups in sex, age distribution, or other relevant variables (potential confounding variables)?
VI. Interpretation a. Which conclusions are justified by the findings? Which are not? b. Are the conclusions relevant to the questions posed by the investigators?
Critiquing a Review Article or Opinion Piece
One’s approach to this can vary according to the journal it is published in, the stature of the author, the number of authors and whether or not it is a group piece drafted by a “panel of experts” (e.g. US preventive services task force; Canadian preventive services task force; WHO or IARC specially convened group; IOM expert panel).
Try to read at least two abstracts of the primary work on which the opinion is based, i.e. studies with primary data collection.
Summarize the article by including both sides of the argument, and evaluating the conclusions as best you can.
Consider what if any are the implications for translating the opinion to other areas of application and for implementing a change in public health practice (similar to the “interpretation” rubric in critiquing a manuscript).
26 October 2006 Shirley A.A. Beresford, PhD
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last
Updated: |
Contact the instructor at 543-9512: or by e-mail beresfrd@u.washington.edu
|
