peer Review Study Design Paper

Use these questions as a guide to indicate if the researcher provided the appropriate details for their study design. If not, provide them suggestions for improvement. The whole point of this peer review is to provide constructive feedback so that your peers are able strengthen their paper. While you are working in groups to develop your study design as well as review the rough drafts, you will be submitting the review papers individually. You should be able to complete this during the allotted time in class. Time over the weekend is given to better organize your summary paper, reflect on your findings and make sure your thoughts are coherent and concise. Summary should be no more than a page and a half, double spaced. Use the underlined headings to organize your study design peer review. The summary peer review is built in to the overall grade for your study design paper and in-class activities.

Instructions: For each of these questions, indicate if the author provided the appropriate details. If not, provide them suggestions for improvement. In addition to providing the feedback to your classmate, you also should turn in a copy of your peer-review to me via blackboard by Dec. 3rd, 10pm

Your Name:

Name of Your Peer being reviewed & Study Title:

Background about the disease

1) Did the author at least briefly describe the disease?

2) Did the author at least briefly describe the people at risk for the disease and the burden of the disease in the population (i.e. was at least one of these mentioned: incidence, prevalence, mortality rate, case-fatality, etc.)? In other words, are you convinced there is a problem in need of a solution?

3) Was there a clear hypothesis or purpose?

4) Did the author provide sufficient background information to justify the study design based on the hypothesis (i.e. did the author justify the importance or need for the study to be conducted)?

Study Design

5) Did the author use an approved study design (randomized trial, cohort, or case-control, or variation of any of the 3 just listed)?

6) Is the designation of the study population clear? Was the author specific about details of the population being studied (i.e. age, race, gender, SES, disease, exposure, location, etc.)? In other words was the author very clear about both inclusion and exclusion criteria. Remember these details affect external validity and it is acceptable to not have a study be externally valid as long as the author is capable of mentioning that it might not be valid to specific populations.

7) Did the author clearly describe how these people would be identified (e.g. recruited)?

8) Did the author clearly indicate disease/non-disease, exposed/nonexposed, or treatment/not treated appropriate for their type of study design? Are the pieces of information collected in the proper order?

9) Did the author describe how they would collect data about the exposure (cause) or treatment (e.g. interviews, surveys, field tests, biological samples, etc.)?

10) Did the author describe how they would collect information about the disease (e.g. medical records, diagnostic tests, interviews, surveys, etc.)?

Quality of the study design

11) Did the author describe the advantages of their study design for answering their hypothesis (e.g. confounding, biases, etc.)? The explanations must be specific to the study design; they cannot be cursory, general, or blanket statements.

12) Did the author describe the advantages of their study design (e.g. reduction of confounding, biases, compliance, etc.)? The explanations must be specific to the study design; they cannot be cursory, general, or blanket statements. For example a generic statement would be the use of a prospective cohort study reduces recall bias. Be specific as to how your study does so.

13) Did the author describe the disadvantages (i.e. limitations) of their study design as it relates to things like bias, confounding, and compliance? The explanations must be specific to the study design; they cannot be cursory, general, or blanket statements. In other words don’t just provide the list given during the lecture. Those are generic bias that can, but do not always occur for every type of study.

14) Did the author include a statement about the external validity (i.e. generalizability) of the study (i.e. did the author indicate to whom the study results could be applied to).

Overall:

15) The paper is well written, is clear to understand and concise. The explanations are specific to the study design and are not generalized blanket statements. The study is well-thought out. The study design appears to be newer and novel.

16) Did the author use appropriate sources? Are the sources referenced correctly? Are the facts cited in the text of the paper?

17) Did the author avoid using websites for sources? I specifically caution against using the CDC website and similar sites from organizations unless it is easy to discern where the fact was acquired (i.e. the website shows references that are directly linked to primary research articles, review articles, or reports).