Integration 3 Evidence Based Practice
Part 1. Answer the following questions based on the brief videos seen in class re: how to read a
research article. You should also refer to the article by Childers, posted on UM Learn
Which section of a research paper is described in each point below?
1. Why the research was done and with emphasis on why the results are significant.
2. What the data shows you – nothing more
3. When was past work done, by whom, why was their work important, what the author plans to
do in their paper, and why what they did is important
4. Why the data shows what it does, and how the author’s analysis relates back to their objectives
from the Introduction.
5. How the author did what they did and where they did it–nothing more
Answer the following as true or false:
6. A critique of a scientific article is essentially a criticism of an article- nothing more T F
7. The reader should always trust that the author of a scientific article has analyzed and presented
the data accurately and in a relevant and useful way. T F
8. For the sake of efficiency, it is sufficient to read the abstract of an article as that provides a good
idea of what the paper is about T F
Part 2. Answer the following based on what you saw in the video about coconut water. You will
need to think about it. Choose some of the statistics provided in the video and speculate about
what type of study they might have done to determine those statistics.
9. What type of study do you think they were performing in the video watched in class? What are
the weaknesses of the “study”?
10. Find and provide the reference for 1 scientific article investigating the benefits of coconut
water. How did you find this reference? How difficult was it to find? When you did your search
were the first hits/results scientific?
Part 3. Provide one example of a claim related to a healthcare product that you have seen or
heard and propose how you might determine whether or not that claim is true.
Part 4. What are some questions you can ask your healthcare provider when they are making
recommendations in order to ensure you are an informed healthcare consumer.
HOW TO READ A SCIENTIFIC [JOURNAL] ARTICLE
© Dan Childers, 2004
“Probably what you should learn if you are a graduate student is
not a large number of facts, especially if they are in books, but what
the important problems are, and to sense which experiments, work
that has been done, probably aren’t quite right.”
James Watson, of Watson & Crick (DNA fame)
When students in the sciences are first faced with using the primary research literature, the
prospect sometimes seems overwhelming. Finding pertinent journal articles often seems to involve
a maze of abstracting journals, indifferent librarians, missing volumes, CD-ROMs from hell, and
bound periodicals that refuse to flatten themselves for photocopiers (no matter how hard you press
on them, CPR-style). Even once an article has been located–or, in the case of this class, provided-there is the problem of reading it. The worst way to assimilate a research paper is to read it word
for word, title to literature cited, as if it were a textbook. This approach is a waste of time, because
perhaps as few as 1 in 4 articles that find there way into your hands should be committed to your
brain, and is deadly boring.
Before reading one word of an article, ask yourself: What am I looking for in this article?
Knowing what I do about the subject, what gaps need to be filled, what knowledge needs to be
expanded, and what controversial points need to be corroborated? Generate expectations of a
journal article before you read it. This will help your analysis of the work in front of you, plus keep
you more interested in the material. Then what:
1. Read and remember the authors’ names. Where and with whom are they working? What is
their expertise? Names may mean little at first, but as you “wade through” a scientific subject or
topic some names will become familiar.
2. Read and digest the title. It should summarize the work of the article well, help you to clarify
your expectations of the paper, and it should be an attention-getter (if you are reading the article,
it has probably already accomplished that task).
3. Read the abstract carefully and try to understand it (though it may be the densest prose you will
ever encounter – abstracts can be as difficult to read as they are to write, because an entire
publication must be summarized in an understandable way in only about 200 words). Now you
should have a good idea of what the paper is about and what you have gotten yourself into. At
this point, it may be obvious that the paper does not answer your questions. If this is true, move
on, but be conservative because the authors’ interpretation of the research presented in the
abstract may not be the same as yours after reading the full paper. Never cite an article after
having read only the abstract! (Why not? What could happen?)
4. Picture time–flip through the article and study the figures, illustrations, and tables, including the
legends. It will probably become necessary to consult the Methods and Results section to clarify
figures and understand the experimental design. If the article is closely related to your research,
closely examine the techniques described in the Methods section. There may be problems there,
but more likely there will be a new, perhaps better, approach to your own research. It should be
clear to you by now whether this paper will be truly helpful. If so, now it is time to be critical
(please, see the note below about this word).
5. Read the Introduction and be sure the author knows the field, has adequately researched past
work, and understands where their work “fits into the puzzle”. Generally, the Intro and Literature
Cited sections go hand-in-hand. Most importantly, within the first paragraph or two of the
Introduction the authors should have made very clear their research objectives and what their
paper will tell you.
6. Check to see if the Results adequately and accurately describe the data presented in the paper.
Are there additional points that should have been brought up? Is there something in the figures
or tables that does not substantiate the authors’ claims that was not mentioned? Do the figures
and tables clearly, succinctly, and attractively present the results of the paper? Remember that
great data presented clumsily or sloppily will not be seen as great, only clumsy or sloppy.
7. Now read the Discussion. This is perhaps the most important section, because it is here that the
results (the “what” of the research) are explained. That is, here is where the authors should at
least try to explain “why” they saw what they saw. Beware of unsubstantiated speculation,
though do not fault, off-hand, the presentation of hypotheses for future work or even
expectations of findings from those future experiments. On the other hand, there are authors
who are prone to timidity, understatement, or who are just plain invertebrate about their ideas.
You should not be left guessing, or left to fumble to your own conclusions because an author
was unwilling to take even a small step out onto a limb. As a moderate example of such
understated conclusions, Watson and Crick ended their historic presentation of the structure of
DNA with the sentence: “It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have
postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material.” In fact,
the complimentary base pairing they presented was no less than a quantum leap in our
understanding of biological systems, in terms of both modern biochemistry and evolution.
Bear in mind that the ultimate burden of assessing published material lies with you, the
reader. Take the time and energy to do this and you will gain more and be further along that the
person who depends on the author for interpretation. Having just completed a critical reading and
assimilation of a journal article pertinent to your work, you should be able to paraphrase the
significance of this paper with 3 or 4 sentences free of technical jargon. You should also be able to
both praise and criticize several points of the paper (this is important–see note below). A general
rule of thumb, regarding what goes where, when both reading and writing a scientific article is:
Title: Short, succinct, eye-catching, all-encompassing
Abstract: Summary of Methods, Results, and Discussion starting off with a statement of why the
research was done and with emphasis on why the results are significant.
Introduction: When was past work done, by whom, why was their work important, what you
plan to do in your paper, and why what you did is important.
Materials and Methods: How you did what you did and where you did it–nothing more.
Results: What the data show you – nothing more.
Discussion: Why the data show what they show, and how your analysis relates back to your
objectives from the Introduction.
Note: Some journals will allow the Results and Discussion sections to be combined. In this case,
the data should be divided up into logical groups, and for each group (generally separated
by a subheading) the what and the why are presented together.
A note on critiques: A critique is different from criticism in the common usage. According to
Webster, a critique “considers the merits and demerits of something and judges
accordingly”. Thus, you can think of a critique as a careful (i.e. critical) exploration.
When critiquing an article (or anything, really), remember that there are positive points to be
found, and made, about everything. To present only negative criticism is, in most cases, to
do only half the job. Consider the context, what has been attempted, and what has been
successfully advanced. Always remember that, while we all make mistakes and do things
incorrectly, we also all do things correctly sometimes. A pat on the back can go a long way.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
