At First Glance What we will cover: Structure of research articles - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Module 2.

At First Glance

What we will cover:

1. Structure of research articles 2. Abstract 3. Discussion 4. Common flaws 5. References 6. Summary

• 1. Structure of articles

• Catchy
• Capture the key themes
• Indicate the relevance

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

• Contains all key information
• Summarizes the article

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

• What is already known
• Defines the importance of the study
• States the research question

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

• The steps taken to produce results
• Is the approach sound?

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

• Presents the data
• Tables, figures, charts

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

• Did the study measure what it intended to?
• Does it add to the body of literature?

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

• Supporting literature
• Is it all relevant?

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion 7. References

Summary: Structure of article

1. Title 2. Abstract 3. Introduction and background 4. Method 5. Results 6. Discussion

• Common flaws
• References

• 2. Abstract

Abstract: at first glance

• Does this article match your area of expertise?
• This is a summary of the article

Abstract: what to comment on

• Does the main article match the abstract?
• Is the aim/research question clear?
• Is the methodology outlined?
• Do results and conclusions align with the aim?
• Does the title convey the main idea?

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

Abstract

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking

• behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period

(1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females (P<0.0001). We discuss some of the reasons for this difference.

Lendrem, BAD, Lendrem DW, Gray A, Isaacs JD (2014) The Darwin Awards: sex differences in idiotic behaviour, BMJ 2014;349:g7094 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7094

• 3. Discussion

Discussion

• Where authors present their conclusions
• How conclusions add to the body of knowledge
• Highlight future research areas

Discussion: what to comment on

• Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study?
• Within the scope of research aims
• Supported with evidence

Discussion: Example

Discussion: Example

Discussion: what to comment on

• Did the author draw the correct conclusion from the results?
• Relevance
• Magnitude of results

Discussion: Example

Discussion: Example

Discussion: Example

Discussion: what to comment on

• Limitations of the study
• Flaws or opportunities for further research?

Discussion: Example

• 4. Common flaws

Common flaws and what to comment on

• Choice of study design
• Best practices for your area of expertise
• Lack of evidence or direction
• Are authors over-interpreting results?
• Unanswered questions
• Your intuition may prompt you when something is wrong

“intuition will tell the thinking mind where to look next.”

• 5. References

References

• Ensure the integrity of the study
• Use literature expertise as well as subject expertise

References: what to comment on

• Are the references relevant?
• Are the references current?
• Are the references cited correctly?

References: Example

• 6. Summary

Summary

• Balance critique with practicality
• Abstracts should summarize the article
• Discussion should explain the significance of the findings
• Watch out for common flaws in research design
• References should be relevant, recent, and correctly cited

Next steps

For the activity, take a ‘first glance’ at a paper. Make comments on:

• Abstract
• Discussion
• Common flaws (if any)
• References