🧠 Critical Review Template for Scientific Articles

• What type of study is this? Is the design appropriate for the research question?
• Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined and justified?
• Is there a risk of selection bias? Was randomization or matching used?
• Is the study duration and follow-up period adequate?

• Is the sample size sufficient? Is there a power calculation?
• Are primary and secondary endpoints clearly defined?
• Were appropriate statistical tests used?
• Are confidence intervals and effect sizes reported?
• Is there any sign of p-hacking or misuse of p-values?

• Were key confounders adequately controlled for?
• Is there evidence of operator bias or chronological bias?
• Are there signs of conceptual ambiguity or false equivalence?
• Are there inconsistencies or missing data not explained?

• Are the results internally consistent?
• Are absolute and relative risks clearly reported and contextualized?
• Are secondary outcomes overemphasized compared to primary endpoints?
• Do the conclusions logically follow from the results?

• Are the findings generalizable to real-world clinical settings?
• Were subgroup analyses conducted and adequately reported?
• Is the discussion grounded in clinical relevance and feasibility?

• Are funding sources and conflicts of interest disclosed?
• Is there evidence of industry bias or ghost authorship?
• Is ethical approval and informed consent properly reported?

• Are key prior studies and systematic reviews cited?
• Is any contradicting evidence ignored or omitted?
• Is the novelty of the study overstated?

• What is the level of evidence provided?
• What unacknowledged limitations can you identify?
• As a reviewer, would you recommend: accept / revise / reject?
• What specific improvements would you suggest?

Write a critique as if you were a peer reviewer for a high-impact journal.

Identify methodological flaws, bias, overinterpretation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Provide concrete suggestions for improvement.

---

A critical review requires you to evaluate an academic text e.g. an article, report, essay, or book. You are asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the text using various criteria. The information and knowledge in the text need to be evaluated, and the criteria that should be used can vary depending on your discipline. This means that management, sociology, information technology, or literature may use different criteria. All critical reviews, however, involve two main tasks: summary and evaluation. Read your assignment instructions carefully to find out what proportion is required for each, and whether these should be presented as separate sections or as a combined text.

---

see Peer-review Process

---

Here's a structured template for writing a critical review of a medical article:

—

# Critical Review of [Article Title] Author(s): [Author Names] Journal: [Journal Name] Publication Year: [Year]

—

## 1. Introduction - Briefly introduce the article:

1. Title, author(s), and journal where it was published.
2. Purpose of the study: What research question does it aim to answer?
3. Summary of main findings in 2–3 sentences.

- State your overall impression of the article (e.g., its relevance, clarity, or impact).

—

## 2. Summary of the Article - Background & Rationale:

1. Why was the study conducted?
2. Does the introduction provide enough context?

- Methods:

1. Study design (RCT, cohort, case-control, systematic review, etc.).
2. Sample size and selection criteria.
3. Procedures and data collection methods.
4. Statistical analysis (Were methods appropriate?).

- Results:

1. Main findings, key data, and statistical significance.
2. Are tables/figures clear and relevant?

- Discussion & Conclusion:

1. Interpretation of results.
2. Are limitations acknowledged?
3. Do conclusions align with results?

—

## 3. Critical Analysis ### 3.1. Strengths - What aspects of the study are well-executed? - Is the methodology robust? - Are the results clearly presented?

### 3.2. Weaknesses & Limitations - Are there flaws in the study design? - Is the sample size too small to generalize findings? - Are biases present (e.g., funding sources, conflicts of interest)? - Any methodological limitations that impact reliability?

### 3.3. Relevance & Impact - How does this study compare to existing literature? - Are the findings clinically applicable? - Do the results support or challenge current guidelines?

—

## 4. Conclusion - Briefly restate the main strengths and weaknesses. - Provide your final evaluation of the article’s contribution to the field. - Suggest future research directions if applicable.

—

## 5. References - Cite the article reviewed. - Include any other relevant references used in your critique.

—

### Guidelines for Writing a Critical Review of a Medical Article

A critical review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of a medical article, assessing its scientific validity, methodology, and clinical relevance. Below are key guidelines to follow when conducting a critical review.

—

## 1. Understanding the Article Before critiquing, ensure you have a deep understanding of the article: ✔ Read the article multiple times. ✔ Identify the research question or hypothesis. ✔ Summarize the study design, methods, results, and conclusions. ✔ Note any potential conflicts of interest or funding sources.

—

## 2. Structure of a Critical Review A structured critical review follows a logical flow, covering all major aspects of the study.

### A. Introduction - Provide basic information about the article:

1. Title, authors, journal, and year of publication.
2. The main research question or objective.
3. Summary of the study’s key findings.

- State your initial impression: Is the article well-structured and clear?

### B. Summary of the Article - Background & Rationale:

1. What is the problem the study addresses?
2. Does the introduction provide sufficient context?

- Methods:

1. What study design was used (RCT, observational, meta-analysis, etc.)?
2. Is the sample size appropriate?
3. Are the statistical analyses justified?

- Results:

1. Are the findings presented clearly with appropriate use of tables and figures?
2. Are the statistical results significant and clinically meaningful?

- Discussion & Conclusion:

1. Are the findings logically interpreted?
2. Do the authors acknowledge limitations and potential biases?
3. Are conclusions supported by the data?

### C. Critical Analysis A good critique balances strengths and weaknesses.

#### 1. Strengths ✔ Is the study well-designed and methodologically sound? ✔ Does it provide valuable clinical insights? ✔ Are the results clearly presented and reproducible?

#### 2. Weaknesses & Limitations ✔ Are there methodological flaws (biases, confounders, poor controls)? ✔ Is the sample size too small or unrepresentative? ✔ Are statistical methods appropriate and correctly applied? ✔ Is there potential conflict of interest?

#### 3. Clinical Relevance & Impact ✔ Does the study add new insights to existing knowledge? ✔ Are the findings generalizable to clinical practice? ✔ How does the article compare to previous research? ✔ Does it support, contradict, or refine existing guidelines?

—

## 3. Writing the Review Keep your review objective, concise, and well-structured.

✔ Use formal academic language. ✔ Support critiques with evidence (e.g., cite other studies). ✔ Maintain logical coherence throughout the review. ✔ Avoid personal opinions without scientific justification.

### Tone & Language - Be constructive, even when criticizing. - Use neutral language: Instead of saying “the study is bad,” say “the study has methodological limitations that may affect its validity.” - Back up criticisms with facts and references.

—

## 4. Final Assessment ✔ Summarize the overall strengths and weaknesses of the article. ✔ Provide a final evaluation:

1. Is the study valid and reliable?
2. Does it contribute meaningfully to the field?
3. What are the implications for clinical practice?

✔ Suggest future research directions, if necessary.

—

## 5. References ✔ Cite the article being reviewed. ✔ Include any additional references that support your analysis.

—

### Checklist for a Strong Critical Review ✅ Clear and structured analysis. ✅ Balanced evaluation of strengths and weaknesses. ✅ Objective tone and academic rigor. ✅ Comparison with existing literature. ✅ Focus on clinical impact and methodology. ✅ Proper citations and references.