Critique epidemiologic articles - Research Paper Example

Critique epidemiologic research articles Affiliation: I. Objective or Hypothesis A.What are the objectives of the study, or what hypotheses are to be tested?The main hypothesis being tested in this research is that intake of a diet high in animal fat and especially fat from the red meat and which is lower in fiber is associated with increased risk of colorectal adenoma and precursors of cancer (Giovannucci, et al, 1994).B. To what population does the investigator intend to generalize these findings?

The study population is the US male health professionals including dentists, podiatrists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths and veterinarians. II. Design of the StudyA. Is the study descriptive, analytical (cross-sectional, case control, cohort) or experimental?This is a longitudinal study which takes 6 years of following up with the study cohort in order to come up with extensive and conclusive results. B. How was the sample selected? What, if any, selection bias exists? What strategies might minimize such bias?

The researchers selected male health professionals between the ages of 40-75 years and mailed them questionnaires and those who responded formed the base population of the research. There was no selection bias as all the health professionals were fitting the cohort were given a chance to participate through provision of a questionnaire. C. Is there a control or comparison group? What is the source of this group? Is this group appropriate? What group might be more appropriate?The control group included people selected randomly in the Boston area who filled the questionnaires with their dietary intake for 2 weeks.

The group is appropriate because they have different lifestyle from the health professionals and their knowledge of the healthy diets and cancer differs from that of health professionals, in short they are complete opposites. III. Observations A. Are there clear definitions of the terms used, including diagnostic criteria, measurements and outcome?There are no clear definitions of the terms used in the article leaving the readers to guess the meanings of the terms as best as they can. B. Was the method of classification or of measurement consistent for all the subjects relevant to the objectives of the investigation?

Are there possible biases in measurement? If so, what provisions were made to deal with them?The methods of measurement were different for the study group as well as the control group. The researchers administered the diet questionnaires to the control group which were strict n the amount of calories on each specific diet record on a weekly basis for the 2 weeks but none of that was done to the control group. This was made through carrying out a follow-up to the study group after every two years. C. Are the observations valid, reliable or reproducible?

The observations of the study group are reproducible as the research team carried out a follow-up of its study group for 6 years and hence in the end they achieved their conclusive results. They can also be said to be valid as they were carried out in a scientific manner. On whether they are reliable or not, the subject is up for discussion because of the lack of a control group to compare results with for the 6 years. IV. Presentation of FindingsA. Are the findings presented clearly, objectively, and in sufficient detail to enable the readers to make their own judgment?

Yes, the findings are very clearly put and explanation made using simple words so that it can be understood by all readers. With the findings simplified, readers are able to make their own judgment. B. Are the findings internally consistent? That is, do the numbers add up properly? Are the different tables clear and the results consistent among them?The numbers in the different tables add up correctly and indicate consistency. This is easy to deduce because of the clarity of the results even though they cannot easily be understood by layman. V. AnalysisA.

Are the data worthy of statistical analysis? If so, are the methods of statistical analysis appropriate? Is the analysis correctly performed and interpreted?Yes the data requires statistical analysis because they involve quantity in numbers of fat and energy. The analysis used is multivariate which is appropriate considering there are several sets of data being analyzed. The analysis and interpretation even though longer is correct. VI. ConclusionsA. Which conclusions are justified by the findings?

Which are not? Are the conclusions relevant to the questions posed by the investigators?The conclusion justified is that which supports the hypothesis. The conclusion about red meat absorption and the acid content has not been analyzed in the data and hence is not appropriate to be made without research. The first conclusion which supports the hypothesis is relevant. VII. Constructive SuggestionsAssume you are planning an investigation to answer the questions put in the study. If they have not been clearly put by the authors, frame them in an appropriate manner.

Suggest a practical design, criteria for observations, and type of analysis that would provide reliable and valid information relevant to the questions under study.The research question should be: does the increased fat and red meat diet with reduced fiber lead contribute to colon cancer in the US male health professionals? The best design should be experiment with observations being made through video cameras and the analysis should still be multivariate. With clear data, the results can be declared to be valid and reliable.

ReferencesGiovannucci, E., Rimm, E., Stampfer, M., Colditz, G., Ascherio, A. and Willett, W. (May 1st, 1994). “Intake of Fat, Meat, and Fiber in Relation to Risk of Colon Cancer in Men.” Cancer Research, vol. 54, pp. 2390-2397.