How to Read a Scientific Paper Critically

J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2022 Jan-April; 17(one): 65–70.

Art of reading a journal commodity: Methodically and effectively

RV Subramanyam

Department of Oral Pathology, Drs Sudha and Nageswara Rao Siddhartha Institute of Dental Sciences, Gannavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract

Background:

Reading scientific literature is mandatory for researchers and clinicians. With an overflow of medical and dental journals, it is essential to develop a method to choose and read the right articles.

Objective:

To outline a logical and orderly approach to reading a scientific manuscript. By breaking down the task into smaller, step-by-step components, one should be able to reach the skills to read a scientific commodity with ease.

Methods:

The reader should begin by reading the title, abstruse and conclusions first. If a decision is fabricated to read the entire article, the fundamental elements of the article tin can be perused in a systematic manner effectively and efficiently. A denoting and organized method is presented to read articles published in scientific journals.

Conclusion:

One can read and appreciate a scientific manuscript if a systematic arroyo is followed in a simple and logical manner.

Keywords: Manufactures, journal, reading, research, systematic

INTRODUCTION

"Nosotros are drowning in data merely starved for noesis."

John Naisbitt

It has become essential for the clinicians, researchers, and students to read articles from scientific journals. This is not simply to go along abreast of progress in the speciality concerned but also to be aware of electric current trends in providing optimum healthcare to the patients. Reading scientific literature is a must for students interested in research, for choosing their topics and carrying out their experiments. Scientific literature in that field will assist 1 understand what has already been discovered and what questions remain unanswered and thus aid in designing 1'southward research project. Sackett (1981)[1] and Durbin (2009)[2] suggested diverse reasons why almost of us read journal articles and some of these are listed in Tabular array one.

Table 1

Common reasons for reading periodical articles

The scientific literature is burgeoning at an exponential rate. Between 1978 and 1985, near 272,344 articles were published annually and listed in Medline. Between 1986 and 1993, this number reached 344,303 articles per twelvemonth, and between 1994 and 2001, the figure has grown to 398,778 articles per twelvemonth.[iii] To be updated with electric current cognition, a dr. practicing general medicine has to read 17 articles a solar day, 365 days a year.[4]

In spite of the cyberspace chop-chop gaining a strong foothold as a quick source of obtaining information, reading journal articles, whether from print or electronic media, still remains the about common way of acquiring new information for most of united states of america.[2] Newspaper reports or novels can be read in an insouciant fashion, but reading inquiry reports and scientific articles requires concentration and meticulous approach. At present, there are 1312 dentistry journals listed in Pubmed.[5] How can one choose an article, read it purposefully, finer, and systematically? The aim of this article is to provide an answer to this question by presenting an efficient and methodical approach to a scientific manuscript. Even so, the reader is informed that this newspaper is mainly intended for the apprentice reader unaccustomed to scientific literature and not for the professional interested in critical appraisement of journal articles.

TYPES OF Periodical Articles

Different types of papers are published in medical and dental journals. One should be enlightened of each kind; particularly, when one is looking for a specific type of an article. Table 2 gives different categories of papers published in journals.

Tabular array 2

Types of articles published in a journal

In general, scientific literature can exist primary or secondary. Reports of original research form the "primary literature", the "core" of scientific publications. These are the articles written to present findings on new scientific discoveries or describe earlier work to acknowledge it and place new findings in the proper perspective. "Secondary literature" includes review articles, books, editorials, exercise guidelines, and other forms of publication in which original research information is reviewed.[half-dozen] An commodity published in a peer-reviewed journal is more valued than one which is not.

An original research article should consist of the following headings: Structured abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) and may be Randomized Control Trial (RCT), Controlled Clinical Trial (CCT), Experiment, Survey, and Case-control or Accomplice report. Reviews could be non-systematic (narrative) or systematic. A narrative review is a broad overview of a topic without any specific question, more or less an update, and qualitative summary. On the other mitt, a systematic review typically addresses a specific question virtually a topic, details the methods by which papers were identified in the literature, uses predetermined criteria for selection of papers to be included in the review, and qualitatively evaluates them. A meta-assay is a type of systematic review in which numeric results of several separate studies are statistically combined to determine the outcome of a specific research question.[seven–ix] Some are invited reviews, requested by the Editor, from an expert in a particular bailiwick.

A case study is a written report of a single clinical case, whereas, a instance series is a description of a number of such cases. Case reports and case series are description of disease (s) more often than not considered rare or written report of heretofore unknown or unusual findings in a well-recognized condition, unique procedure, imaging technique, diagnostic test, or treatment method. Technical notes are description of new, innovative techniques, or modifications to existing procedures. A pictorial essay is a didactics article with images and legends simply has limited text. Commentary is a short commodity on an writer's personal opinion of a specific topic and could be controversial. An editorial, written by the editor of the journal or invited, can be perspective (about manufactures published in that particular event) or persuasive (arguing a specific betoken of view). Other articles published in a journal include letters to the editor, book reviews, briefing proceedings and abstracts, and abstracts from other journals.[x]

WHAT TO READ IN A JOURNAL? – CHOOSING THE Right ARTICLE

Not all research articles published are excellent, and it is businesslike to decide if the quality of the study warrants reading of the manuscript. The first step for a reader is to cull a correct article for reading, depending on one's private requirement. The next step is to read the selected article methodically and efficiently.[2] A simple controlling flowchart is depicted in [Figure 1], which helps one to decide the type of commodity to select. This flowchart is meant for one who has a specific intent of choosing a particular type of article and not for i who intends to browse through a journal.

Schematic flowchart of the first step in choosing an article to read

HOW TO START READING AN ARTICLE?

"There is an art of reading, likewise equally an art of thinking, and an art of writing."

Clarence Day

At starting time glance, a journal article might announced intimidating for some or confusing for others with its tables and graphs. Reading a research article can exist a frustrating experience, peculiarly for the 1 who has not mastered the fine art of reading scientific literature. Just similar in that location is a method to excerpt a tooth or prepare a cavity, one tin can also learn to read enquiry manufactures by following a systematic approach. Most scientific articles are organized as follows:[ii,11]

1. Title: Topic and data about the authors.

2. Abstract: Cursory overview of the commodity.

3. Introduction: Groundwork data and statement of the enquiry hypothesis.

4. Methods: Details of how the report was conducted, procedures followed, instruments used and variables measured.

5. Results: All the data of the report along with figures, tables and/or graphs.

6. Word: The interpretation of the results and implications of the study.

7. References/Bibliography: Citations of sources from where the information was obtained.

Review articles practise non usually follow the above design, unless they are systematic reviews or meta-analysis. The cardinal dominion is: Never commencement reading an article from the beginning to the end. It is better to begin by identifying the conclusions of the study past reading the title and the abstract.[12] If the commodity does not have an abstract, read the conclusions or the summary at the end of the article beginning. After reading the abstract or conclusions, if the reader deems it is interesting or useful, and then the entire article can be read [Figure 2].

Decision-making flowchart to decide whether to read the chosen article or not

THE TITLE

Similar the championship of a movie which attracts a filmgoer, the championship of the article is the 1 which attracts a reader in the first place. A practiced title will inform the potential reader a great deal about the study to decide whether to go ahead with the newspaper or dismiss information technology. Most readers prefer titles that are descriptive and self-explanatory without having to look at the entire article to know what it is all about.[2] For example, the paper entitled "Microwave processing – A approving for pathologists" gives an idea nearly the commodity in full general to the reader. But there is no indication in the title whether it is a review article on microwave processing or an original enquiry. If the title had been "Comparison of Microwave with Conventional Tissue Processing on quality of histological sections", even the insouciant reader would take a improve understanding of the content of the paper.

Abstract

Abstract helps us determine whether we should read the unabridged commodity or not. In fact, most journals provide abstruse costless of toll online allowing usa to make up one's mind whether we need to purchase the entire article. Most scientific journals now have a structured abstract with divide subheadings like introduction (background or hypothesis), methods, results and conclusions making it easy for a reader to identify important parts of the study speedily.[xiii] Moreover, at that place is ordinarily a restriction about the number of words that can be included in an abstract. This makes the abstract concise enough for one to read quickly.

The abstract tin be read in a systematic way by answering certain key questions like what was the report about, why and how was the study conducted, the results and their inferences. The reader should brand a note of any questions that were raised while reading the abstract and be sure that answers have been found subsequently reading the unabridged article.[12]

Reading the entire article

Once the reader has decided to read the unabridged article, i tin brainstorm with the introduction.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the introduction is to provide the rationale for conducting the study. This section normally starts with existing knowledge and previous enquiry of the topic under consideration. Typically, this section concludes with identification of gaps in the literature and how these gaps stimulated the researcher to design a new study.[12] A proficient introduction should provide proper background for the study. The aims and objectives are unremarkably mentioned at the finish of the introduction. The reader should also determine whether a research hypothesis (report hypothesis) was stated and later bank check whether information technology was answered nether the discussion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This section gives the technical details of how the experiments were carried out. In about of the research manufactures, all details are rarely included but at that place should exist plenty data to understand how the report was carried out.[12] Information about the number of subjects included in the written report and their categorization, sampling methods, the inclusion criteria (who can be in) and exclusion criteria (who cannot be in) and the variables chosen can be derived by reading this department. The reader should get acquainted with the procedures and equipment used for data collection and find out whether they were appropriate.

RESULTS OF THE Written report

In this department, the researchers give details about the data collected, either in the class of figures, tables and/or graphs. Ideally, interpretation of data should not be reported in this section, though statistical analyses are presented. The reader should meticulously go through this segment of the manuscript and find out whether the results were reliable (same results over fourth dimension) and valid (mensurate what it is supposed to measure). An important attribute is to check if all the subjects nowadays in the outset of the report were accounted for at the end of the study. If the reply is no, the reader should check whether any explanation was provided.

Results that were statistically significant and results that were non, must exist identified. One should also notice whether a correct statistical test was employed for analysis and was the level of significance advisable for the study. To appreciate the choice of a statistical test, i requires an understanding of the hypothesis being tested.[14,15] Table 3 provides a list of commonly used statistical tests used in scientific publications. Clarification and interpretation of these tests is beyond the scope of this newspaper. Information technology is wise to remember the following advice: It is non only important to know whether a departure or association is statistically significant just as well appreciate whether it is large or substantial enough to be useful clinically.[sixteen] In other words, what is statistically meaning may non be clinically significant.

Table three

Basic statistics commonly used in scientific publications

Word

This is the most important section of the article where the research questions are answered and the pregnant of analysis and interpretation of the data are presented. Unremarkably the study results are compared with other studies, explaining in what aspects they were different or like. Ideally, no new information should be presented under discussion and no data from other sections should be repeated.[2] In add-on, this section also discusses the various strengths and limitations/shortcomings of the written report, providing suggestions near areas that need boosted research.

The meaning of results and their analyses, new theories or hypotheses, limitations of the report, explanation of differences and similarities with other comparable studies, and suggestions for future enquiry are offered in this section. It is important to remember that the discussions are the authors' interpretations and opinions and not necessarily facts.

READING THE Conclusion (AGAIN !)

Though conclusion office had been read at the showtime, it is prudent to read information technology again at the end to confirm whether what we had inferred initially is correct. If the decision had not fabricated sense earlier, information technology may make sense after having perused through the entire commodity. Sometimes, the study conclusions are included in the discussion section and may not be piece of cake to locate. The questions that tin can be asked under diverse sub-headings of an original research paper are presented as a simple questionnaire in Table 4. Information technology is assumed that 1 who is using this questionnaire has read and analyzed the abstract and and then decided to read the entire article. This questionnaire does not critically analyze a scientific article. However, answers to these questions provide a systematic approach to obtain a broad overview of the manuscript, specially to a novice. If one who is new to reading articles, writing answers to these questions and taking notes volition assist in understanding most aspects of a research article.

Table 4

Questionnaire for original enquiry articles

CONCLUSION

"Permit u.s.a. read with method, and propose to ourselves an end to which our studies may point. The use of reading is to assistance us in thinking."

Edward Gibbon

It has become mandatory to read scientific literature to be well-informed of always-expanding information and/or for better diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. Since at that place is an affluence of journals and manufactures, it is critical to develop a modus operandi for achieving a rapid, purposeful, effective and useful method to read these manuscripts. A simple but efficient and logical approach to scientific literature has been presented hither for choosing articles and reading them systematically and effectively for a amend agreement.

Footnotes

Source of Back up: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

REFERENCES

i. How to read clinical journals: I. Why to read them and how to start reading them critically. Can Med Assoc J. 1981;124:555–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

two. Durbin CG., Jr How to read a scientific enquiry paper. Respir Care. 2009;54:1366–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Druss BG, Marcus SC. Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: Implications for prove-based medicine. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:499–501. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Hersh W. Information Retrieval: A Health and Biomedical Perspective (Health Informatics) third ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2009. p. 68. 80, 85. [Google Scholar]

7. Callcut RA, Branson RD. How to read a review paper. Respir Care. 2009;54:1379–1385. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Greenhalgh T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses) BMJ. 1997;315:672–5. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

x. Peh WC, Ng KH. Basic structure and types of scientific papers. Singapore Med J. 2008;49:522–five. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Hudson-Barr D. How to read a research article. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2004;9:70–two. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. International Commission of Medical Journal Editors. Compatible requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. [Concluding accessed on 2022 Oct ten]. Bachelor from: http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html .

14. Hess DR. How to write an effective discussion. Respir Care. 2004;49:1238–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Das R, Das PN. Biomedical Inquiry Methodology including Biostatistical Applications. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publications (P) Ltd; 2011. pp. 123–45. [Google Scholar]

xvi. Riegelman RK. Studying a Study and Testing a Test: How to read the medical evidence. 5th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. p. 45. [Google Scholar]

vonstieglitzforrinfort.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3687192/

Share :