An evidence-Based Approach to the prevention of Catheter Associated Urinary Tract Infections
Module 4 Article Summary/Critique Guide – Primary post
Things to note
1. Review the week 4 article selected
2. Complete either the “Quantitative Critique Form” or “Qualitative Critique Form” prior to writing
the critique (based on the article you selected if applicable). The forms are available in the
Module 4 site.
3. This is going to be a short critique paper (shorter than the module 3 critique, maximum 3 pages,
double-spaced, in 12 pt font)
4. This is an essay, not an outline. Do not list off your points with numbers and bullets.
5. Tone: it should not be written in a conversational or otherwise informal manner. You might find
it useful to study the way in which a review article is written in a scientific journal (See the
No title paper is needed, Try to limit 3 pages
No separate reference page: before introducing the literature, provide the article
information in APA reference format.
After reporting the reference, provide the summary, critical evaluation and conclusion
Your name (Reviewer):
Reference: First, provide the article information in APA reference format (top).
Summary (Introduction): (approximately ½ page)
Provide a succinct summary in the first paragraph including the background and purpose of the study.
Also give a brief description of the methods used to address the questions or hypotheses.
After reading the first paragraph, the reader should know the purpose, hypotheses (or research
question), and findings. Note that this summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually
shorter than the critical evaluation.
For example, the purpose of this study was to xxx (verb, such as examine, determine, test, etc)
relationship (such as difference, association. etc. ). (_____Insert the type) design was used to
(verb) among (____insert sample)
Critical Evaluation: Critique structure (approximately 1 page)
Describe specifics about the research design, including the sample, instrumentation, and data analysis.
Address threats to internal validity. Following the information on threats to internal validity, provide
suggestions regarding how these threats could have been dealt with. This shows a high level of
Address both strengths and weaknesses of the article. Consider the following questions.
Were the methods, in some way, unique or especially interesting? Or do you see any problems
or shortcomings in the methods?
Did the provided data answer the questions that the authors set forth?
Was the presentation of the data (figures or tables) clear and convincing?
Can you see any obvious problems or inconsistencies with the way the data were analyzed or
Are the results able to be generalized to other (clinical) settings? Do their results have clinical
Is the paper hard to follow? Poorly organized? A pleasure to read?
Conclusion (less than ½ page)
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:
A statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work (including the level of evidence
hierarchy p. 424 in textbook)
In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement of the work may be appropriate.
Table Based on the information you reviewed, create a summary table (See the sample)
Title Authors Purpose Methods Findings/Conclusion Level of
Title of the
article Last name and
year only Start with “to”
For example, to
strategies on the
readmission rates in
patients with heart
failure. Provide the
Data collection Findings
Conclusions Level xx