Critical appraisal of an original research article

Critical appraisal of evidence involves carefully evaluating a study's validity, reliability, applicability and generalisability. It is essential for all clinicians and those involved in academic publishing. A manuscript must adhere to two sets of standards. First, reporting guidelines ensure uniformity, transparency and clarity. Then, critical appraisal tools or criteria assess the study's methodological robustness. The manuscript may undergo a preliminary screening before we initiate the critical appraisal process. The foremost criterion is evaluating the journal's quality, assessing the study topic, design and sample size, and checking if the study objectives and outcome measures have been clearly stated. An original study is typically presented in the standard 'IMRaD' format, with each section addressing a specific set of questions. The primary purpose of the 'Introduction' section is to justify the study's objective. The 'Methods' section is crucial to the manuscript. It aids in assessing the validity of the research, describes the critical parameters in a study protocol and ensures the study's replicability. The main components covered in the 'Methods' section include the study question, design, population, sample size, outcome measures, statistical analysis and details of ethics approval. The 'Results' section should discuss the study's findings, which are outlined in the objectives. The 'Discussion' section covers the implications of the study, which should be balanced, and the interpretation in this section should align with the reported results. The validity of a study is nothing but its closeness to the truth, that is, the extent to which the results are accurate and free from bias. Hence, minimising this chance of bias in a study makes it more valid. Internal validity generally reflects a study's methodological robustness, and external validity reflects the generalisability or applicability. In this era of evidence-based medicine, critical appraisal becomes necessary as people always discuss practising it in their daily clinical practice.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715251369964
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.80
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Critical appraisal of an original research article

Sham Santhanam, Vinod K. Ravindran, Chris Wincup
2 citations
The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
2.80
article

Critical appraisal of an original research article

Sham Santhanam, Vinod K. Ravindran, Chris Wincup
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Critical appraisal of evidence involves carefully evaluating a study's validity, reliability, applicability and generalisability. It is essential for all clinicians and those involved in academic publishing. A manuscript must adhere to two sets of standards. First, reporting guidelines ensure uniformity, transparency and clarity. Then, critical appraisal tools or criteria assess the study's methodological robustness. The manuscript may undergo a preliminary screening before we initiate the critical appraisal process. The foremost criterion is evaluating the journal's quality, assessing the study topic, design and sample size, and checking if the study objectives and outcome measures have been clearly stated. An original study is typically presented in the standard 'IMRaD' format, with each section addressing a specific set of questions. The primary purpose of the 'Introduction' section is to justify the study's objective. The 'Methods' section is crucial to the manuscript. It aids in assessing the validity of the research, describes the critical parameters in a study protocol and ensures the study's replicability. The main components covered in the 'Methods' section include the study question, design, population, sample size, outcome measures, statistical analysis and details of ethics approval. The 'Results' section should discuss the study's findings, which are outlined in the objectives. The 'Discussion' section covers the implications of the study, which should be balanced, and the interpretation in this section should align with the reported results. The validity of a study is nothing but its closeness to the truth, that is, the extent to which the results are accurate and free from bias. Hence, minimising this chance of bias in a study makes it more valid. Internal validity generally reflects a study's methodological robustness, and external validity reflects the generalisability or applicability. In this era of evidence-based medicine, critical appraisal becomes necessary as people always discuss practising it in their daily clinical practice.

The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of EdinburghVol. 55(4)
Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN), Sooriya Hospital (IN), King's College Hospital (GB), Kasturba Medical College, Manipal (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
2.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.