• Privacy Policy
  • SignUp/Login

Research Method

Home » Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Critical Analysis

Critical Analysis

Definition:

Critical analysis is a process of examining a piece of work or an idea in a systematic, objective, and analytical way. It involves breaking down complex ideas, concepts, or arguments into smaller, more manageable parts to understand them better.

Types of Critical Analysis

Types of Critical Analysis are as follows:

Literary Analysis

This type of analysis focuses on analyzing and interpreting works of literature , such as novels, poetry, plays, etc. The analysis involves examining the literary devices used in the work, such as symbolism, imagery, and metaphor, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.

Film Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting films, including their themes, cinematography, editing, and sound. Film analysis can also include evaluating the director’s style and how it contributes to the overall message of the film.

Art Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting works of art , such as paintings, sculptures, and installations. The analysis involves examining the elements of the artwork, such as color, composition, and technique, and how they contribute to the overall meaning of the work.

Cultural Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting cultural artifacts , such as advertisements, popular music, and social media posts. The analysis involves examining the cultural context of the artifact and how it reflects and shapes cultural values, beliefs, and norms.

Historical Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting historical documents , such as diaries, letters, and government records. The analysis involves examining the historical context of the document and how it reflects the social, political, and cultural attitudes of the time.

Philosophical Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting philosophical texts and ideas, such as the works of philosophers and their arguments. The analysis involves evaluating the logical consistency of the arguments and assessing the validity and soundness of the conclusions.

Scientific Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting scientific research studies and their findings. The analysis involves evaluating the methods used in the study, the data collected, and the conclusions drawn, and assessing their reliability and validity.

Critical Discourse Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting language use in social and political contexts. The analysis involves evaluating the power dynamics and social relationships conveyed through language use and how they shape discourse and social reality.

Comparative Analysis

This type of analysis involves examining and interpreting multiple texts or works of art and comparing them to each other. The analysis involves evaluating the similarities and differences between the texts and how they contribute to understanding the themes and meanings conveyed.

Critical Analysis Format

Critical Analysis Format is as follows:

I. Introduction

  • Provide a brief overview of the text, object, or event being analyzed
  • Explain the purpose of the analysis and its significance
  • Provide background information on the context and relevant historical or cultural factors

II. Description

  • Provide a detailed description of the text, object, or event being analyzed
  • Identify key themes, ideas, and arguments presented
  • Describe the author or creator’s style, tone, and use of language or visual elements

III. Analysis

  • Analyze the text, object, or event using critical thinking skills
  • Identify the main strengths and weaknesses of the argument or presentation
  • Evaluate the reliability and validity of the evidence presented
  • Assess any assumptions or biases that may be present in the text, object, or event
  • Consider the implications of the argument or presentation for different audiences and contexts

IV. Evaluation

  • Provide an overall evaluation of the text, object, or event based on the analysis
  • Assess the effectiveness of the argument or presentation in achieving its intended purpose
  • Identify any limitations or gaps in the argument or presentation
  • Consider any alternative viewpoints or interpretations that could be presented
  • Summarize the main points of the analysis and evaluation
  • Reiterate the significance of the text, object, or event and its relevance to broader issues or debates
  • Provide any recommendations for further research or future developments in the field.

VI. Example

  • Provide an example or two to support your analysis and evaluation
  • Use quotes or specific details from the text, object, or event to support your claims
  • Analyze the example(s) using critical thinking skills and explain how they relate to your overall argument

VII. Conclusion

  • Reiterate your thesis statement and summarize your main points
  • Provide a final evaluation of the text, object, or event based on your analysis
  • Offer recommendations for future research or further developments in the field
  • End with a thought-provoking statement or question that encourages the reader to think more deeply about the topic

How to Write Critical Analysis

Writing a critical analysis involves evaluating and interpreting a text, such as a book, article, or film, and expressing your opinion about its quality and significance. Here are some steps you can follow to write a critical analysis:

  • Read and re-read the text: Before you begin writing, make sure you have a good understanding of the text. Read it several times and take notes on the key points, themes, and arguments.
  • Identify the author’s purpose and audience: Consider why the author wrote the text and who the intended audience is. This can help you evaluate whether the author achieved their goals and whether the text is effective in reaching its audience.
  • Analyze the structure and style: Look at the organization of the text and the author’s writing style. Consider how these elements contribute to the overall meaning of the text.
  • Evaluate the content : Analyze the author’s arguments, evidence, and conclusions. Consider whether they are logical, convincing, and supported by the evidence presented in the text.
  • Consider the context: Think about the historical, cultural, and social context in which the text was written. This can help you understand the author’s perspective and the significance of the text.
  • Develop your thesis statement : Based on your analysis, develop a clear and concise thesis statement that summarizes your overall evaluation of the text.
  • Support your thesis: Use evidence from the text to support your thesis statement. This can include direct quotes, paraphrases, and examples from the text.
  • Write the introduction, body, and conclusion : Organize your analysis into an introduction that provides context and presents your thesis, a body that presents your evidence and analysis, and a conclusion that summarizes your main points and restates your thesis.
  • Revise and edit: After you have written your analysis, revise and edit it to ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and well-organized. Check for spelling and grammar errors, and make sure that your analysis is logically sound and supported by evidence.

When to Write Critical Analysis

You may want to write a critical analysis in the following situations:

  • Academic Assignments: If you are a student, you may be assigned to write a critical analysis as a part of your coursework. This could include analyzing a piece of literature, a historical event, or a scientific paper.
  • Journalism and Media: As a journalist or media person, you may need to write a critical analysis of current events, political speeches, or media coverage.
  • Personal Interest: If you are interested in a particular topic, you may want to write a critical analysis to gain a deeper understanding of it. For example, you may want to analyze the themes and motifs in a novel or film that you enjoyed.
  • Professional Development : Professionals such as writers, scholars, and researchers often write critical analyses to gain insights into their field of study or work.

Critical Analysis Example

An Example of Critical Analysis Could be as follow:

Research Topic:

The Impact of Online Learning on Student Performance

Introduction:

The introduction of the research topic is clear and provides an overview of the issue. However, it could benefit from providing more background information on the prevalence of online learning and its potential impact on student performance.

Literature Review:

The literature review is comprehensive and well-structured. It covers a broad range of studies that have examined the relationship between online learning and student performance. However, it could benefit from including more recent studies and providing a more critical analysis of the existing literature.

Research Methods:

The research methods are clearly described and appropriate for the research question. The study uses a quasi-experimental design to compare the performance of students who took an online course with those who took the same course in a traditional classroom setting. However, the study may benefit from using a randomized controlled trial design to reduce potential confounding factors.

The results are presented in a clear and concise manner. The study finds that students who took the online course performed similarly to those who took the traditional course. However, the study only measures performance on one course and may not be generalizable to other courses or contexts.

Discussion :

The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of the study’s findings. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the study and provide suggestions for future research. However, they could benefit from discussing potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between online learning and student performance.

Conclusion :

The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and provides some implications for future research and practice. However, it could benefit from providing more specific recommendations for implementing online learning programs in educational settings.

Purpose of Critical Analysis

There are several purposes of critical analysis, including:

  • To identify and evaluate arguments : Critical analysis helps to identify the main arguments in a piece of writing or speech and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. This enables the reader to form their own opinion and make informed decisions.
  • To assess evidence : Critical analysis involves examining the evidence presented in a text or speech and evaluating its quality and relevance to the argument. This helps to determine the credibility of the claims being made.
  • To recognize biases and assumptions : Critical analysis helps to identify any biases or assumptions that may be present in the argument, and evaluate how these affect the credibility of the argument.
  • To develop critical thinking skills: Critical analysis helps to develop the ability to think critically, evaluate information objectively, and make reasoned judgments based on evidence.
  • To improve communication skills: Critical analysis involves carefully reading and listening to information, evaluating it, and expressing one’s own opinion in a clear and concise manner. This helps to improve communication skills and the ability to express ideas effectively.

Importance of Critical Analysis

Here are some specific reasons why critical analysis is important:

  • Helps to identify biases: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases and assumptions, as well as the biases of others. By being aware of biases, individuals can better evaluate the credibility and reliability of information.
  • Enhances problem-solving skills : Critical analysis encourages individuals to question assumptions and consider multiple perspectives, which can lead to creative problem-solving and innovation.
  • Promotes better decision-making: By carefully evaluating evidence and arguments, critical analysis can help individuals make more informed and effective decisions.
  • Facilitates understanding: Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues and ideas by breaking them down into smaller parts and evaluating them separately.
  • Fosters intellectual growth : Engaging in critical analysis challenges individuals to think deeply and critically, which can lead to intellectual growth and development.

Advantages of Critical Analysis

Some advantages of critical analysis include:

  • Improved decision-making: Critical analysis helps individuals make informed decisions by evaluating all available information and considering various perspectives.
  • Enhanced problem-solving skills : Critical analysis requires individuals to identify and analyze the root cause of a problem, which can help develop effective solutions.
  • Increased creativity : Critical analysis encourages individuals to think outside the box and consider alternative solutions to problems, which can lead to more creative and innovative ideas.
  • Improved communication : Critical analysis helps individuals communicate their ideas and opinions more effectively by providing logical and coherent arguments.
  • Reduced bias: Critical analysis requires individuals to evaluate information objectively, which can help reduce personal biases and subjective opinions.
  • Better understanding of complex issues : Critical analysis helps individuals to understand complex issues by breaking them down into smaller parts, examining each part and understanding how they fit together.
  • Greater self-awareness: Critical analysis helps individuals to recognize their own biases, assumptions, and limitations, which can lead to personal growth and development.

About the author

' src=

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Paper Conclusion

Research Paper Conclusion – Writing Guide and...

Probability Histogram

Probability Histogram – Definition, Examples and...

Appendices

Appendices – Writing Guide, Types and Examples

Substantive Framework

Substantive Framework – Types, Methods and...

Research Report

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Delimitations

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Banner

Writing a Critical Analysis

What is in this guide, definitions, putting it together, tips and examples of critques.

  • Background Information
  • Cite Sources

Library Links

  • Ask a Librarian
  • Library Tutorials
  • The Research Process
  • Library Hours
  • Online Databases (A-Z)
  • Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
  • Reserve a Study Room
  • Report a Problem

This guide is meant to help you understand the basics of writing a critical analysis. A critical analysis is an argument about a particular piece of media. There are typically two parts: (1) identify and explain the argument the author is making, and (2), provide your own argument about that argument. Your instructor may have very specific requirements on how you are to write your critical analysis, so make sure you read your assignment carefully.

critical analysis of research paper

Critical Analysis

A deep approach to your understanding of a piece of media by relating new knowledge to what you already know.

Part 1: Introduction

  • Identify the work being criticized.
  • Present thesis - argument about the work.
  • Preview your argument - what are the steps you will take to prove your argument.

Part 2: Summarize

  • Provide a short summary of the work.
  • Present only what is needed to know to understand your argument.

Part 3: Your Argument

  • This is the bulk of your paper.
  • Provide "sub-arguments" to prove your main argument.
  • Use scholarly articles to back up your argument(s).

Part 4: Conclusion

  • Reflect on  how  you have proven your argument.
  • Point out the  importance  of your argument.
  • Comment on the potential for further research or analysis.
  • Cornell University Library Tips for writing a critical appraisal and analysis of a scholarly article.
  • Queen's University Library How to Critique an Article (Psychology)
  • University of Illinois, Springfield An example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article
  • Next: Background Information >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 4:33 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.pittcc.edu/critical_analysis

How to read a paper, critical review

Reading a scientific article is a complex task. The worst way to approach this task is to treat it like the reading of a textbook—reading from title to literature cited, digesting every word along the way without any reflection or criticism.

A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review. The following guidelines are designed to help you critically evaluate a research article.

How to Read a Scientific Article

You should begin by skimming the article to identify its structure and features. As you read, look for the author’s main points.

  • Generate questions before, during, and after reading.
  • Draw inferences based on your own experiences and knowledge.
  • To really improve understanding and recall, take notes as you read.

What is meant by critical and evaluation?

  • To be critical does not mean to criticise in an exclusively negative manner.   To be critical of a text means you question the information and opinions in the text, in an attempt to evaluate or judge its worth overall.
  • An evaluation is an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a text.   This should relate to specific criteria, in the case of a research article.   You have to understand the purpose of each section, and be aware of the type of information and evidence that are needed to make it convincing, before you can judge its overall value to the research article as a whole.

Useful Downloads

  • How to read a scientific paper
  • How to conduct a critical review

Critically Analyzing Information Sources: Critical Appraisal and Analysis

  • Critical Appraisal and Analysis

Initial Appraisal : Reviewing the source

  • What are the author's credentials--institutional affiliation (where he or she works), educational background, past writings, or experience? Is the book or article written on a topic in the author's area of expertise? You can use the various Who's Who publications for the U.S. and other countries and for specific subjects and the biographical information located in the publication itself to help determine the author's affiliation and credentials.
  • Has your instructor mentioned this author? Have you seen the author's name cited in other sources or bibliographies? Respected authors are cited frequently by other scholars. For this reason, always note those names that appear in many different sources.
  • Is the author associated with a reputable institution or organization? What are the basic values or goals of the organization or institution?

B. Date of Publication

  • When was the source published? This date is often located on the face of the title page below the name of the publisher. If it is not there, look for the copyright date on the reverse of the title page. On Web pages, the date of the last revision is usually at the bottom of the home page, sometimes every page.
  • Is the source current or out-of-date for your topic? Topic areas of continuing and rapid development, such as the sciences, demand more current information. On the other hand, topics in the humanities often require material that was written many years ago. At the other extreme, some news sources on the Web now note the hour and minute that articles are posted on their site.

C. Edition or Revision

Is this a first edition of this publication or not? Further editions indicate a source has been revised and updated to reflect changes in knowledge, include omissions, and harmonize with its intended reader's needs. Also, many printings or editions may indicate that the work has become a standard source in the area and is reliable. If you are using a Web source, do the pages indicate revision dates?

D. Publisher

Note the publisher. If the source is published by a university press, it is likely to be scholarly. Although the fact that the publisher is reputable does not necessarily guarantee quality, it does show that the publisher may have high regard for the source being published.

E. Title of Journal

Is this a scholarly or a popular journal? This distinction is important because it indicates different levels of complexity in conveying ideas. If you need help in determining the type of journal, see Distinguishing Scholarly from Non-Scholarly Periodicals . Or you may wish to check your journal title in the latest edition of Katz's Magazines for Libraries (Olin Reference Z 6941 .K21, shelved at the reference desk) for a brief evaluative description.

Critical Analysis of the Content

Having made an initial appraisal, you should now examine the body of the source. Read the preface to determine the author's intentions for the book. Scan the table of contents and the index to get a broad overview of the material it covers. Note whether bibliographies are included. Read the chapters that specifically address your topic. Reading the article abstract and scanning the table of contents of a journal or magazine issue is also useful. As with books, the presence and quality of a bibliography at the end of the article may reflect the care with which the authors have prepared their work.

A. Intended Audience

What type of audience is the author addressing? Is the publication aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Is this source too elementary, too technical, too advanced, or just right for your needs?

B. Objective Reasoning

  • Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? It is not always easy to separate fact from opinion. Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts. Skilled writers can make you think their interpretations are facts.
  • Does the information appear to be valid and well-researched, or is it questionable and unsupported by evidence? Assumptions should be reasonable. Note errors or omissions.
  • Are the ideas and arguments advanced more or less in line with other works you have read on the same topic? The more radically an author departs from the views of others in the same field, the more carefully and critically you should scrutinize his or her ideas.
  • Is the author's point of view objective and impartial? Is the language free of emotion-arousing words and bias?

C. Coverage

  • Does the work update other sources, substantiate other materials you have read, or add new information? Does it extensively or marginally cover your topic? You should explore enough sources to obtain a variety of viewpoints.
  • Is the material primary or secondary in nature? Primary sources are the raw material of the research process. Secondary sources are based on primary sources. For example, if you were researching Konrad Adenauer's role in rebuilding West Germany after World War II, Adenauer's own writings would be one of many primary sources available on this topic. Others might include relevant government documents and contemporary German newspaper articles. Scholars use this primary material to help generate historical interpretations--a secondary source. Books, encyclopedia articles, and scholarly journal articles about Adenauer's role are considered secondary sources. In the sciences, journal articles and conference proceedings written by experimenters reporting the results of their research are primary documents. Choose both primary and secondary sources when you have the opportunity.

D. Writing Style

Is the publication organized logically? Are the main points clearly presented? Do you find the text easy to read, or is it stilted or choppy? Is the author's argument repetitive?

E. Evaluative Reviews

  • Locate critical reviews of books in a reviewing source , such as the Articles & Full Text , Book Review Index , Book Review Digest, and ProQuest Research Library . Is the review positive? Is the book under review considered a valuable contribution to the field? Does the reviewer mention other books that might be better? If so, locate these sources for more information on your topic.
  • Do the various reviewers agree on the value or attributes of the book or has it aroused controversy among the critics?
  • For Web sites, consider consulting this evaluation source from UC Berkeley .

Permissions Information

If you wish to use or adapt any or all of the content of this Guide go to Cornell Library's Research Guides Use Conditions to review our use permissions and our Creative Commons license.

  • Next: Tips >>
  • Last Updated: Apr 18, 2022 1:43 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.cornell.edu/critically_analyzing

Pasco-Hernando State College

Finding and Evaluating Sources (Critical Analysis)

  • Traditional Sources
  • Electronic Library Resources
  • Internet Sources
  • Synthesizing Information from Sources
  • MLA Documentation
  • APA Documentation
  • Writing a Research Paper

Related Pages

  • The Writing Process
  • Proving the Thesis - General Principles
  • Proving the Thesis - Logic
  • Proving the Thesis - Logical Fallacies and Appeals

Fi nding Sources

Identify the research question.

Before you can start research, you must first identify the research question. Your instructor will either assign a specific research question or a research topic.

If you are assigned a question or can select from a list of questions, it is easy to identify your question. You can start with  focused  research looking for sources that would help to answer the question. Don’t select a source by the title. It is critical that you read through possible sources to see if they will help with the question. For example, if your question asks whether pesticides in foods are harmful, don’t just select any source that has to do with pesticides. There are pesticide issues with the environment, for example, that have nothing to do with this question.

If you are assigned a topic, you will start with  exploratory  research. Exploratory research is where you explore various aspects of the topic and after learning something about it, you focus on a particular question of your choice. This is called narrowing the topic. Then, your research becomes focused research on that particular question.

Either way, before doing research for a research paper, you must identify a research question. The research question is critical since all of the content of the research essay follows from the question.

Primary and Secondary Sources

A primary source is where the author is presenting his or her own information either based on professional knowledge or research. This is the best type of source to use when conducting research.

A secondary source is where the author is reporting information presented from other people. This means that there could be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation or the information, and it is not considered as reliable as primary sources.

Traditional Sources, Electronic Library Resources, and Internet Sources

Traditional sources are tangible sources as existed before the Internet: books, newspapers, magazines, film, interviews,  works of art, and so on. Then with the Internet, a new source of information has become available in the website. In addition, many traditional sources have been collected and made available online. Electronic Library Resources (available to PHSC students through a link in Canvas) provides many originally hard-print sources electronically.

Evaluating Sources

General considerations.

It is important to first make sure you understand your assignment as to how many sources are required and any restrictions on where they may be from.  There might be a requirement to use at least one type of specific source such as a book, article from a journal, magazine, or newspaper, or page from a website. 

Don't simply select a source by the title. You must review to be sure the content will help answer the question. For example, if your research question or topic is about how the moon affects earth's tides, the source must have information on that specific area. Some articles on the moon might talk about space exploration or its geography or its climate, none of which will help with a paper about tides.

Once you have screened for appropriateness, the content should be reviewed for reading level. If the paper is too technical, it may not be understandable enough to work with. You should be able to understand it and make notes on the main points.

Then, a closer look is needed.  

Critical Analysis

The term critical doesn't always mean finding the problems or being judgmental.  A movie critic, for example, reviews a movie for strengths and weaknesses. We have to be critics ourselves when we review our own writing and when we review information for our papers. We shouldn't just believe everything we see, hear, or read. We have to be particularly careful when that information comes from a purportedly legitimate source. We generally think that documentaries have true and accurate information, but sometimes they don't present all viewpoints or are biased towards one.  Here are a number of considerations:

  • credibility  – is the source believable?; is the source created by a person or organization that knows about the subject matter.  Determining credibility of online sources can be a challenge since it is not always clear who created or published what we are looking at. If a person is named as author, is that person a professional in the field?
  • facts  – does the source include the truth; is information based on evidence
  • opinion  –  is the content a personal evaluation of the author and not necessarily based on specific, accurate, or credible evidence?
  • evidence  – is there support such as examples, statistics, descriptions, comparisons, and illustrations; evidence is also called proof, support, or supporting evidence.  
  • bias and slanted language  – is there a  preference for one side over the other; is there slanted language which is language shows a bias or preference for one position over another.
  • tone  – what is the tone?  Words can be used to create a feeling such as a happy tone or sarcastic tone or angry tone. Tone can be used to persuade.
  • stereotype  – the generalization that a person or situation in a certain category has certain attributes such as because a person is old, he or she is a bad drive. Stereotyping is faulty logic.
  • preconceived ideas  – ideas that we already have; in doing research, it is very important to look for sources that present all of the perspectives on a question, not just those that prove what we think we know.
  • logic  – evidence should be evaluated for logic; does the evidence have any logical fallacies.  
  • valid argument  – is the argument valid? A valid argument is based on logical analysis of information, but if the information is not accurate, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
  • sound argument  – an argument based on a syllogism that has accurate major and minor premises. An argument can be sound, but it is not necessarily true since the information on which it is based may not be accurate.
  • Toulmin Logic  – a form of logic that uses claim, grounds, and warrant for analyzing the logic of an argument.
  • logical fallacies (flawed logic) – faulty logic; includes sweeping generalization, argument to the person (ad hominem), non sequitur, either/or fallacy, begging the question, and bandwagon argument.  
  • appeals  – use of language to sway the reader by appealing to emotions, logic, or ethics. 
  • Printer-friendly version

Printer Friendly, PDF & Email

Banner

Academic Writing

  • Understanding Scholarly Text

Critical Analysis Diagram (text only to the right of the image)

Elements of the critical analysis, useful link: reading & writing critically.

  • Literature Review
  • Research Paper
  • Position Paper

Writing & Tutoring Help at Bowie

Smith vidal literacy & language center.

Location:  Martin Luther King Jr. Building, Room 251 Hours:  8:30 am – 5 pm Mon. - Fri.

Writing Center Contacts

A. Introduction - The introduction moves from general to specific. This is where you are:

open with a short orientation (introduce the topic area(s) with a general, broad opening sentence (or two);

answer the question with a thesis statement; and 

provide a summary or 'road map' of your essay (keep it brief, but mention all the main ideas).

B. Body - The body of the essay consists of paragraphs. Each is a building block in the construction of your argument. The body is where you:

  • answer the question by developing a discussion.
  • show your knowledge and grasp of material you have read.
  • offer exposition and evidence to develop your argument.
  • use relevant examples and authoritative quotes.

If your question has more than one part, structure the body into section that deal with each part of the question.

3. Conclusion - The conclusion moves from specific to general. It should:

  • restate your answer to the question;
  • re-summarize the main points and;
  • include a final, broad statement (about possible implication, future directions for research, to qualify the conclusion, etc.)

However, NEVER introduce new information or idea in the conclusion - its purpose is to round off your essay by summing up.

Because each section of a critical analysis builds on the section before it and supports the section to follow, the structure of this genre is usually fairly standard.  The introduction and summary set the stage and the analysis communicates the critic's views which are then summarized and restated in the conclusion. 

-- Text taken from The University of New South Wales. "Essay Writing: the Basics." Retrieved 17 August, 2012 from http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/onlib/essay3.html.

Writing critically requires an author to engage on an analytical level with a written work, whether it is an article, a book, or a portion of a book.  In other words, to write critically is to present and explain an idea that one has had about someone else’s written work.  A critical analysis may  include supportive references like you would find in a research paper, but will generally have a much stronger emphasis on its author’s interpretation than you would find in an objective research paper. 

Introduction – will include general information about the work being analyzed and a statement of the critical writer’s viewpoint or evaluation of the larger work. 

Summarization – the thematic/background information that a reader will need to understand the critic’s analysis and the key point from the original work that is being addressed. 

Critical Analysis – a review of the original author’s argument within the critical context of the analysis, with supporting evidence from the original text.

Conclusion – a restatement of the critic’s thesis and the key points of the analysis.

Although the page linked below focuses on writing critically, it also features information on reading critically, an invaluable skill in identfying different types of academic writing. 

  • Writing a Critical Analysis (Critique) A guide to reading and writing critically. Document prepared by the Academic Skills Center of the Shoreline Community College.
  • << Previous: Understanding Scholarly Text
  • Next: Literature Review >>
  • Last Updated: Aug 15, 2023 4:05 PM
  • URL: https://bowiestate.libguides.com/academicwriting

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

  • Citation Styles

How to write a critical analysis

How to write a critical analysis paper

Unlike the name implies a critical analysis does not necessarily mean that you are only exploring what is wrong with a piece of work. Instead, the purpose of this type of essay is to interact with and understand a text. Here’s what you need to know to create a well-written critical analysis essay.

What is a critical analysis?

A critical analysis examines and evaluates someone else’s work, such as a book, an essay, or an article. It requires two steps: a careful reading of the work and thoughtful analysis of the information presented in the work.

Although this may sound complicated, all you are doing in a critical essay is closely reading an author’s work and providing your opinion on how well the author accomplished their purpose.

Critical analyses are most frequently done in academic settings (such as a class assignment). Writing a critical analysis demonstrates that you are able to read a text and think deeply about it. However, critical thinking skills are vital outside of an educational context as well. You just don’t always have to demonstrate them in essay form.

How to outline and write a critical analysis essay

Writing a critical analysis essay involves two main chunks of work: reading the text you are going to write about and writing an analysis of that text. Both are equally important when writing a critical analysis essay.

Step one: Reading critically

The first step in writing a critical analysis is to carefully study the source you plan to analyze.

If you are writing for a class assignment, your professor may have already given you the topic to analyze in an article, short story, book, or other work. If so, you can focus your note-taking on that topic while reading.

Other times, you may have to develop your own topic to analyze within a piece of work. In this case, you should focus on a few key areas as you read:

  • What is the author’s intended purpose for the work?
  • What techniques and language does the author use to achieve this purpose?
  • How does the author support the thesis?
  • Who is the author writing for?
  • Is the author effective at achieving the intended purpose?

Once you have carefully examined the source material, then you are ready to begin planning your critical analysis essay.

Step two: Writing the critical analysis essay

Taking time to organize your ideas before you begin writing can shorten the amount of time that you spend working on your critical analysis essay. As an added bonus, the quality of your essay will likely be higher if you have a plan before writing.

Here’s a rough outline of what should be in your essay. Of course, if your instructor gives you a sample essay or outline, refer to the sample first.

  • Background Information

Critical Analysis

Here is some additional information on what needs to go into each section:

Background information

In the first paragraph of your essay, include background information on the material that you are critiquing. Include context that helps the reader understand the piece you are analyzing. Be sure to include the title of the piece, the author’s name, and information about when and where it was published.

“Success is counted sweetest” is a poem by Emily Dickinson published in 1864. Dickinson was not widely known as a poet during her lifetime, and this poem is one of the first published while she was alive.

After you have provided background information, state your thesis. The thesis should be your reaction to the work. It also lets your reader know what to expect from the rest of your essay. The points you make in the critical analysis should support the thesis.

Dickinson’s use of metaphor in the poem is unexpected but works well to convey the paradoxical theme that success is most valued by those who never experience success.

The next section should include a summary of the work that you are analyzing. Do not assume that the reader is familiar with the source material. Your summary should show that you understood the text, but it should not include the arguments that you will discuss later in the essay.

Dickinson introduces the theme of success in the first line of the poem. She begins by comparing success to nectar. Then, she uses the extended metaphor of a battle in order to demonstrate that the winner has less understanding of success than the loser.

The next paragraphs will contain your critical analysis. Use as many paragraphs as necessary to support your thesis.

Discuss the areas that you took notes on as you were reading. While a critical analysis should include your opinion, it needs to have evidence from the source material in order to be credible to readers. Be sure to use textual evidence to support your claims, and remember to explain your reasoning.

Dickinson’s comparison of success to nectar seems strange at first. However the first line “success is counted sweetest” brings to mind that this nectar could be bees searching for nectar to make honey. In this first stanza, Dickinson seems to imply that success requires work because bees are usually considered to be hard-working and industrious.

In the next two stanzas, Dickinson expands on the meaning of success. This time she uses the image of a victorious army and a dying man on the vanquished side. Now the idea of success is more than something you value because you have worked hard for it. Dickinson states that the dying man values success even more than the victors because he has given everything and still has not achieved success.

This last section is where you remind the readers of your thesis and make closing remarks to wrap up your essay. Avoid summarizing the main points of your critical analysis unless your essay is so long that readers might have forgotten parts of it.

In “Success is counted sweetest” Dickinson cleverly upends the reader’s usual thoughts about success through her unexpected use of metaphors. The poem may be short, but Dickinson conveys a serious theme in just a few carefully chosen words.

What type of language should be used in a critical analysis essay?

Because critical analysis papers are written in an academic setting, you should use formal language, which means:

  • No contractions
  • Avoid first-person pronouns (I, we, me)

Do not include phrases such as “in my opinion” or “I think”. In a critical analysis, the reader already assumes that the claims are your opinions.

Your instructor may have specific guidelines for the writing style to use. If the instructor assigns a style guide for the class, be sure to use the guidelines in the style manual in your writing.

Additional t ips for writing a critical analysis essay

To conclude this article, here are some additional tips for writing a critical analysis essay:

  • Give yourself plenty of time to read the source material. If you have time, read through the text once to get the gist and a second time to take notes.
  • Outlining your essay can help you save time. You don’t have to stick exactly to the outline though. You can change it as needed once you start writing.
  • Spend the bulk of your writing time working on your thesis and critical analysis. The introduction and conclusion are important, but these sections cannot make up for a weak thesis or critical analysis.
  • Give yourself time between your first draft and your second draft. A day or two away from your essay can make it easier to see what you need to improve.

Frequently Asked Questions about critical analyses

In the introduction of a critical analysis essay, you should give background information on the source that you are analyzing. Be sure to include the author’s name and the title of the work. Your thesis normally goes in the introduction as well.

A critical analysis has four main parts.

  • Introduction

The focus of a critical analysis should be on the work being analyzed rather than on you. This means that you should avoid using first person unless your instructor tells you to do otherwise. Most formal academic writing is written in third person.

How many paragraphs your critical analysis should have depends on the assignment and will most likely be determined by your instructor. However, in general, your critical analysis paper should have three to six paragraphs, unless otherwise stated.

Your critical analysis ends with your conclusion. You should restate the thesis and make closing remarks, but avoid summarizing the main points of your critical analysis unless your essay is so long that readers might have forgotten parts of it.

How to write a book report

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

Banner

Write a Critical Review

Introduction, how can i improve my critical review, ask us: chat, email, visit or call.

Click to chat: contact the library

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

How to Integrate Critical Voice in Your Lit Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Accidental Plagiarism

More help: Writing

  • Book Writing Appointments Get help on your writing assignments.
  • To introduce the source, its main ideas, key details, and its place within the field
  • To present your assessment of the quality of the source

In general, the introduction of your critical review should include

  • Author(s) name
  • Title of the source 
  • What is the author's central purpose?
  • What methods or theoretical frameworks were used to accomplish this purpose?
  • What topic areas, chapters, sections, or key points did the author use to structure the source?
  • What were the results or findings of the study?
  • How were the results or findings interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (author's view of evidence rather than objective findings)?
  • Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
  • Why did they do this research?
  • Was this research pertinent only within the author’s field, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
  • On what prior research was this source-based? What gap is the author attempting to address?
  • How important was the research question posed by the researcher?
  • Your overall opinion of the quality of the source. Think of this like a thesis or main argument.
  • Present your evaluation of the source, providing evidence from the text (or other sources) to support your assessment.

In general, the body of your critical review should include

  • Is the material organized logically and with appropriate headings?
  • Are there stylistic problems in logical, clarity or language?
  • Were the author(s) able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised
  • What was the objective of the study?
  • Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
  • Are the methods valid for studying the problem or gap?
  • Could the study be duplicated from the information provided?
  • Is the experimental design logical and reliable?
  • How are the data organized? Is it logical and interpretable?
  • Do the results reveal what the researcher intended?
  • Do the authors present a logical interpretation of the results?
  • Have the limitations of the research been addressed?
  • Does the study consider other key studies in the field or other research possibilities or directions?
  • How was the significance of the work described?
  • Follow the structure of the journal article (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) - highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in each section
  • Present the weaknesses of the article, and then the strengths of the article (or vice versa).
  • Group your ideas according to different research themes presented in the source
  • Group the strengths and weaknesses of the article into the following areas: originality, reliability, validity, relevance, and presentation

Purpose: 

  • To summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the article as a whole
  • To assert the article’s practical and theoretical significance

In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include

  • A restatement of your overall opinion
  • A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source
  • Did the research reported in this source result in the formation of new questions, theories or hypotheses by the authors or other researchers?
  • Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
  • Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the field, a new research technique?
  • Did the research produce any practical applications? 
  • What are the social, political, technological, or medical implications of this research?
  • How do you evaluate the significance of the research? 
  • Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) and follow the guidelines to create a reference list (may be called a bibliography or works cited).
  • Be sure to include citations in the text when you refer to the source itself or external sources. 
  • Check out our Cite Your Sources Guide for more information. 
  • Read assignment instructions carefully and refer to them throughout the writing process.
  • Make an outline of your main sections before you write.
  • If your professor does not assign a topic or source, you must choose one yourself. Select a source that interests you and is written clearly so you can understand it.
  • << Previous: Start Here
  • Last Updated: Sep 26, 2023 10:58 AM
  • URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/CriticalReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

critical analysis of research paper

  • The Open University
  • Guest user / Sign out
  • Study with The Open University

OpenLearn

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

About this free course

Become an ou student, download this course, share this free course.

Succeeding in postgraduate study

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

1 Important points to consider when critically evaluating published research papers

Simple review articles (also referred to as ‘narrative’ or ‘selective’ reviews), systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide rapid overviews and ‘snapshots’ of progress made within a field, summarising a given topic or research area. They can serve as useful guides, or as current and comprehensive ‘sources’ of information, and can act as a point of reference to relevant primary research studies within a given scientific area. Narrative or systematic reviews are often used as a first step towards a more detailed investigation of a topic or a specific enquiry (a hypothesis or research question), or to establish critical awareness of a rapidly-moving field (you will be required to demonstrate this as part of an assignment, an essay or a dissertation at postgraduate level).

The majority of primary ‘empirical’ research papers essentially follow the same structure (abbreviated here as IMRAD). There is a section on Introduction, followed by the Methods, then the Results, which includes figures and tables showing data described in the paper, and a Discussion. The paper typically ends with a Conclusion, and References and Acknowledgements sections.

The Title of the paper provides a concise first impression. The Abstract follows the basic structure of the extended article. It provides an ‘accessible’ and concise summary of the aims, methods, results and conclusions. The Introduction provides useful background information and context, and typically outlines the aims and objectives of the study. The Abstract can serve as a useful summary of the paper, presenting the purpose, scope and major findings. However, simply reading the abstract alone is not a substitute for critically reading the whole article. To really get a good understanding and to be able to critically evaluate a research study, it is necessary to read on.

While most research papers follow the above format, variations do exist. For example, the results and discussion sections may be combined. In some journals the materials and methods may follow the discussion, and in two of the most widely read journals, Science and Nature, the format does vary from the above due to restrictions on the length of articles. In addition, there may be supporting documents that accompany a paper, including supplementary materials such as supporting data, tables, figures, videos and so on. There may also be commentaries or editorials associated with a topical research paper, which provide an overview or critique of the study being presented.

Box 1 Key questions to ask when appraising a research paper

  • Is the study’s research question relevant?
  • Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding?
  • Does the study test a stated hypothesis?
  • Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question?
  • Do the study methods address key potential sources of bias?
  • Were suitable ‘controls’ included in the study?
  • Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly?
  • Is there a clear statement of findings?
  • Does the data support the authors’ conclusions?
  • Are there any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns?

There are various strategies used in reading a scientific research paper, and one of these is to start with the title and the abstract, then look at the figures and tables, and move on to the introduction, before turning to the results and discussion, and finally, interrogating the methods.

Another strategy (outlined below) is to begin with the abstract and then the discussion, take a look at the methods, and then the results section (including any relevant tables and figures), before moving on to look more closely at the discussion and, finally, the conclusion. You should choose a strategy that works best for you. However, asking the ‘right’ questions is a central feature of critical appraisal, as with any enquiry, so where should you begin? Here are some critical questions to consider when evaluating a research paper.

Look at the Abstract and then the Discussion : Are these accessible and of general relevance or are they detailed, with far-reaching conclusions? Is it clear why the study was undertaken? Why are the conclusions important? Does the study add anything new to current knowledge and understanding? The reasons why a particular study design or statistical method were chosen should also be clear from reading a research paper. What is the research question being asked? Does the study test a stated hypothesis? Is the design of the study appropriate to the research question? Have the authors considered the limitations of their study and have they discussed these in context?

Take a look at the Methods : Were there any practical difficulties that could have compromised the study or its implementation? Were these considered in the protocol? Were there any missing values and, if so, was the number of missing values too large to permit meaningful analysis? Was the number of samples (cases or participants) too small to establish meaningful significance? Do the study methods address key potential sources of bias? Were suitable ‘controls’ included in the study? If controls are missing or not appropriate to the study design, we cannot be confident that the results really show what is happening in an experiment. Were the statistical analyses appropriate and applied correctly? Do the authors point out the limitations of methods or tests used? Were the methods referenced and described in sufficient detail for others to repeat or extend the study?

Take a look at the Results section and relevant tables and figures : Is there a clear statement of findings? Were the results expected? Do they make sense? What data supports them? Do the tables and figures clearly describe the data (highlighting trends etc.)? Try to distinguish between what the data show and what the authors say they show (i.e. their interpretation).

Moving on to look in greater depth at the Discussion and Conclusion : Are the results discussed in relation to similar (previous) studies? Do the authors indulge in excessive speculation? Are limitations of the study adequately addressed? Were the objectives of the study met and the hypothesis supported or refuted (and is a clear explanation provided)? Does the data support the authors’ conclusions? Maybe there is only one experiment to support a point. More often, several different experiments or approaches combine to support a particular conclusion. A rule of thumb here is that if multiple approaches and multiple lines of evidence from different directions are presented, and all point to the same conclusion, then the conclusions are more credible. But do question all assumptions. Identify any implicit or hidden assumptions that the authors may have used when interpreting their data. Be wary of data that is mixed up with interpretation and speculation! Remember, just because it is published, does not mean that it is right.

O ther points you should consider when evaluating a research paper : Are there any financial, ethical or other conflicts of interest associated with the study, its authors and sponsors? Are there ethical concerns with the study itself? Looking at the references, consider if the authors have preferentially cited their own previous publications (i.e. needlessly), and whether the list of references are recent (ensuring that the analysis is up-to-date). Finally, from a practical perspective, you should move beyond the text of a research paper, talk to your peers about it, consult available commentaries, online links to references and other external sources to help clarify any aspects you don’t understand.

The above can be taken as a general guide to help you begin to critically evaluate a scientific research paper, but only in the broadest sense. Do bear in mind that the way that research evidence is critiqued will also differ slightly according to the type of study being appraised, whether observational or experimental, and each study will have additional aspects that would need to be evaluated separately. For criteria recommended for the evaluation of qualitative research papers, see the article by Mildred Blaxter (1996), available online. Details are in the References.

Activity 1 Critical appraisal of a scientific research paper

A critical appraisal checklist, which you can download via the link below, can act as a useful tool to help you to interrogate research papers. The checklist is divided into four sections, broadly covering:

  • some general aspects
  • research design and methodology
  • the results
  • discussion, conclusion and references.

Science perspective – critical appraisal checklist [ Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. ( Hide tip ) ]

  • Identify and obtain a research article based on a topic of your own choosing, using a search engine such as Google Scholar or PubMed (for example).
  • The selection criteria for your target paper are as follows: the article must be an open access primary research paper (not a review) containing empirical data, published in the last 2–3 years, and preferably no more than 5–6 pages in length.
  • Critically evaluate the research paper using the checklist provided, making notes on the key points and your overall impression.

Critical appraisal checklists are useful tools to help assess the quality of a study. Assessment of various factors, including the importance of the research question, the design and methodology of a study, the validity of the results and their usefulness (application or relevance), the legitimacy of the conclusions, and any potential conflicts of interest, are an important part of the critical appraisal process. Limitations and further improvements can then be considered.

Previous

Study Site Homepage

Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates

Student resources.

Critical analysis template

Use the templates as a guide to help you hone your ability to critique texts perfectly.

Click on the following links, which will open in a new window.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Dtsch Arztebl Int
  • v.106(7); 2009 Feb

Critical Appraisal of Scientific Articles

Jean-baptist du prel.

1 Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik (IMBEI), Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz

Bernd Röhrig

Maria blettner, introduction.

In the era of evidence-based medicine, one of the most important skills a physician needs is the ability to analyze scientific literature critically. This is necessary to keep medical knowledge up to date and to ensure optimal patient care. The aim of this paper is to present an accessible introduction into critical appraisal of scientific articles.

Using a selection of international literature, the reader is introduced to the principles of critical reading of scientific articles in medicine. For the sake of conciseness, detailed description of statistical methods is omitted.

Widely accepted principles for critically appraising scientific articles are outlined. Basic knowledge of study design, structuring of an article, the role of different sections, of statistical presentations as well as sources of error and limitation are presented. The reader does not require extensive methodological knowledge. As far as necessary for critical appraisal of scientific articles, differences in research areas like epidemiology, clinical, and basic research are outlined. Further useful references are presented.

Basic methodological knowledge is required to select and interpret scientific articles correctly.

Despite the increasing number of scientific publications, many physicians find themselves with less and less time to read what others have written. Selection, reading, and critical appraisal of publications is, however, necessary to stay up to date in one’s field. This is also demanded by the precepts of evidence-based medicine ( 1 , 2 ).

Besides the medical content of a publication, its interpretation and evaluation also require understanding of the statistical methodology. Sadly, not even in science are all terms always used correctly. The word "significance," for example, has been overused because significant (or positive) results are easier to get published ( 3 , 4 ).

The aim of this article is to present the essential principles of the evaluation of scientific publications. With the exception of a few specific features, these principles apply equally to experimental, clinical, and epidemiological studies. References to more detailed literature are provided.

Decision making

Before starting a scientific article, the reader must be clear as to his/her intentions. For quick information on a given subject, he/she is advised to read a recent review of some sort, whether a (simple) review article, a systematic review, or a meta-analysis.

The references in review articles point the reader towards more detailed information on the topic concerned. In the absence of any recent reviews on the desired theme, databases such as PubMed have to be consulted.

Regular perusal of specialist journals is an obvious way of keeping up to date. The article title and abstract help the reader to decide whether the article merits closer attention. The title gives the potential reader a concise, accurate first impression of the article’s content. The abstract has the same basic structure as the article and renders the essential points of the publication in greatly shortened form. Reading the abstract is no substitute for critically reading the whole article, but shows whether the authors have succeeded in summarizing aims, methods, results, and conclusions.

The structure of scientific publications

The structure of scientific articles is essentially always the same. The title, summary and key words are followed by the main text. This is divided into Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion (IMRAD), ending when appropriate with Conclusions and References. The content and purpose of the individual sections are described in detail below.

The Introduction sets out to familiarize the reader with the subject matter of the investigation. The current state of knowledge should be presented with reference to the recent literature and the necessity of the study should be clearly laid out. The findings of the studies cited should be given in detail, quoting numerical results. Inexact phrases such as "inconsistent findings," "somewhat better" and so on are to be avoided. Overall, the text should give the impression that the author has read the articles cited. In case of doubt the reader is recommended to consult these publications him-/herself. A good publication backs up its central statements with references to the literature.

Ideally, this section should progress from the general to the specific. The introduction explains clearly what question the study is intended to answer and why the chosen design is appropriate for this end.

This important section bears a certain resemblance to a cookbook. The description of the procedures should give the reader "recipes" that can be followed to repeat the study. Here are found the essential data that permit appraisal of the study’s validity ( 6 ). The methods section can be divided into subsections with their own headings; for example, laboratory techniques can be described separately from statistical methods.

The methods section should describe all stages of planning, the composition of the study sample (e.g., patients, animals, cell lines), the execution of the study, and the statistical methods: Was a study protocol written before the study commenced? Was the investigation preceded by a pilot study? Are location and study period specified? It should be stated in this section that the study was carried out with the approval of the appropriate ethics committee. The most important element of a scientific investigation is the study design. If for some reason the design is unacceptable, then so is the article, regardless of how the data were analyzed ( 7 ).

The choice of study design should be explained and depicted in clear terms. If important aspects of the methodology are left undescribed, the reader is advised to be wary. If, for example, the method of randomization is not specified, as is often the case ( 8 ), one ought not to assume that randomization took place at all ( 7 ). The statistical methods should be lucidly portrayed and complex statistical parameters and procedures described clearly, with references to the specialist literature. Box 1 contains further questions that may be helpful in evaluation of the Methods section.

Questions on methodology

  • Is the study design suited to fulfill the aims of the study?
  • Is it stated whether the study is confirmatory, exploratory or descriptive in nature?
  • What type of study was chosen, and does it permit the aims of the study to be addressed?
  • Is the study’s endpoint precisely defined?

Do epidemiological studies, for instance, give the incidence (rate of new cases), prevalence (current number of cases), mortality (proportion of the population that dies of the disease concerned), lethality (proportion of those with the disease who die of it) or the hospital admission rate (proportion of the population admitted to hospital because of the disease)?

  • Are the geographical area, the population, the study period (including duration of follow-up), and the intervals between investigations described in detail?

Study design and implementation are described by Altman ( 7 ), Trampisch and Windeler ( 9 ), and Klug et al. ( 10 ). In experimental studies, precise depiction of the design and execution is vital. The accuracy of a method, i.e. its reliability (precision) and validity (correctness), must be stated. The explanatory power of the results of a clinical study is improved by the inclusion of a control group (active, historical, or placebo controls) and by the randomized assignment of patients to the different arms of the study. The quality can also be raised by blinding of the investigators, which guarantees identical treatment and observation of all study participants. A clinical study should as a rule include an estimation of the required number of patients (case number planning) before the beginning of the study. More detail on clinical studies can be found, for instance, in the book by Schumacher and Schulgen ( 11 ). International recommendations specially formulated for the reporting of randomized, controlled clinical trials are presented in the most recent version of the CONSORT Statement (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) ( 12 ).

Epidemiological investigations can be divided into intervention studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and ecological studies. Table 1 outlines what type of study is best suited to what situation ( 13 ). One characteristic of a good publication is a precise account of inclusion and exclusion criteria. How high was the response rate (≥80% is good, ≤30% means no or only slight power), and how high was the rate of loss to follow-up, e.g. when participants move away or withdraw their cooperation? To determine whether participants differ from nonparticipants, data on the latter should be included. The selection criteria and the rates of loss to follow-up permit conclusions as to whether the study sample is representative of the target population. A good study description includes information on missing values. Particularly in case-control studies, but also in nonrandomized clinical studies and cohort studies, the choice of the controls must be described precisely. Only then can one be sure that the control group is comparable with the study group and shows no systematic discrepancies that can lead to misinterpretation (confounding) or other problems ( 13 ).

Is it explained how measurements were conducted? Are the instruments and techniques, e.g. measuring devices, scale of measured values, laboratory data, and time point, described in sufficient detail? Were the measurements made under standardized—and thus comparable—conditions in all patients? Details of measurement procedures are important for assessment of accuracy (reliability, validity). The reader must see on what kind of scale the variables are being measured (e.g. eye color, nominal; tumor stage, ordinal; bodyweight, metric), because the type of scale determines what kind of analysis is possible. Descriptive analysis employs descriptive measured values and graphic and/or tabular presentations, whereas in statistical analysis the choice of test has to be taken into consideration. The interpretation and power of the results is also influenced by the scale type. For example, data on an ordinal scale should not be expressed in terms of mean values.

Was there a careful power calculation before the study started? If the number of cases is too low, a real difference, e.g. between the effects of two medications or in the risk of disease in the presence vs. absence of a given environmental factor, may not be detected. One then speaks of insufficient power.

In this section the findings should be presented clearly and objectively, i.e. without interpretation. The interpretation of the results belongs in the ensuing discussion. The results section should address directly the aims of the study and be presented in a well-structured, readily understandable and consistent manner. The findings should first be formulated descriptively, stating statistical parameters such as case numbers, mean values, measures of variation, and confidence intervals. This section should include a comprehensive description of the study population. A second, analytic subsection describes the relationship between characteristics, or estimates the effect of a risk factor, say smoking behavior, on a dependent variable, say lung cancer, and may include calculation of appropriate statistical models.

Besides information on statistical significance in the form of p values, comprehensive description of the data and details on confidence intervals and effect sizes are strongly recommended ( 14 , 15 , 16 ). Tables and figures may improve the clarity, and the data therein should be self-explanatory.

In this section the author should discuss his/her results frankly and openly. Regardless of the study type, there are essentially two goals:

Comparison of the findings with the status quo— The Discussion should answer the following questions: How has the study added to the body of knowledge on the given topic? What conclusions can be drawn from the results? Will the findings of the study lead the author to reconsider or change his/her own professional behavior, e.g. to modify a treatment or take previously unconsidered factors into account? Do the findings suggest further investigations? Does the study raise new, hitherto unanswered questions? What are the implications of the results for science, clinical routine, patient care, and medical practice? Are the findings in accord with those of the majority of earlier studies? If not, why might that be? Do the results appear plausible from the biological or medical viewpoint?

Critical analysis of the study’s limitations— Might sources of bias, whether random or systematic in nature, have affected the results? Even with painstaking planning and execution of the study, errors cannot be wholly excluded. There may, for instance, be an unexpectedly high rate of loss to follow-up (e.g. through patients moving away or refusing to participate further in the study). When comparing groups one should establish whether there is any intergroup difference in the composition of participants lost to follow-up. Such a discrepancy could potentially conceal a true difference between the groups, e.g. in a case-control study with regard to a risk factor. A difference may also result from positive selection of the study population. The Discussion must draw attention to any such differences and describe the patients who do not complete the study. Possible distortion of the study results by missing values should also be discussed.

Systematic errors are particularly common in epidemiological studies, because these are mostly observational rather than experimental in nature. In case-control studies, a typical source of error is the retrospective determination of the study participants’ exposure. Their memories may not be accurate (recall bias). A frequent source of error in cohort studies is confounding. This occurs when two closely connected risk factors are both associated with the dependent variable. Errors of this type can be corrected and revealed by adjustment for the confounding factor. For instance, the fact that smokers drink more coffee than average could lead to the erroneous assumption that drinking coffee causes lung cancer. If potential confounders are not mentioned in the publication, the critical reader should wonder whether the results might not be invalidated by this type of error. If possible confounding factors were not included in the analysis, the potential sources of error should at least be critically debated. Detailed discussion of sources of error and means of correction can be found in the books by Beaglehole and Webb ( 17 , 18 ).

Results that do not attain statistical significance must also be published. Unfortunately, greater importance is still often attached to significant results, so that they are more likely to be published than nonsignificant findings. This publication bias leads to systematic distortions in the body of scientific knowledge. According to a recent review this is particularly true for clinical studies ( 3 ). Only when all valid results of a well-planned and correctly conducted study are published can useful conclusions be drawn regarding the effect of a risk factor on the occurrence of a disease, the value of a diagnostic procedure, the properties of a substance, or the success of an intervention, e.g. a treatment. The investigator and the journal publishing the article are thus obliged to ensure that decisions on important issues can be taken in full knowledge of all valid, scientifically substantiated findings.

It should not be forgotten that statistical significance, i.e. the minimization of the likelihood of a chance result, is not the same as clinical relevance. With a large enough sample, even minuscule differences can become statistically significant, but the findings are not automatically relevant ( 13 , 19 ). This is true both for epidemiological studies, from the public health perspective, and for clinical studies, from the clinical perspective. In both cases, careful economic evaluation is required to decide whether to modify or retain existing practices. At the population level one must ask how often the investigated risk factor really occurs and whether a slight increase in risk justifies wide-ranging public health interventions. From the clinical viewpoint, it must be carefully considered whether, for example, the slightly greater efficacy of a new preparation justifies increased costs and possibly a higher incidence of side effects. The reader has to appreciate the difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance in order to evaluate the results properly.

Conclusions

The authors should concentrate on the most important findings. A crucial question is whether the interpretations follow logically from the results. One should avoid conclusions that are supported neither by one’s own data nor by the findings of others. It is wrong to refer to an exploratory data analysis as a proof. Even in confirmatory studies, one’s own results should, for the sake of consistency, always be considered in light of other investigators’ findings. When assessing the results and formulating the conclusions, the weaknesses of the study must be given due consideration. The study can attain objectivity only if the possibility of erroneous or chance results is admitted. The inclusion of nonsignificant results contributes to the credibility of the study. "Not significant" should not be confused with "no association." Significant results should be considered from the viewpoint of biological and medical plausibility.

So-called levels of evidence scales, as used in some American journals, can help the reader decide to what extent his/her practice should be affected by the content of a given publication ( 20 ). Until all journals offer recommendations of this kind, the individual physician’s ability to read scientific texts critically will continue to play a decisive role in determining whether diagnostic and therapeutic practice are based on up-to-date medical knowledge.

The references are to be presented in the journal’s standard style. The reference list must include all sources cited in the text, tables and figures of the article. It is important to ensure that the references are up to date, in order to make it clear whether the publication incorporates new knowledge. The references cited should help the reader to explore the topic further.

Acknowledgements and conflict of interest statement

This important section must provide information on any sponsors of the study. Any potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, must be revealed in full ( 21 ).

Table 2 and Box 2 summarize the essential questions which, when answered, will reveal the quality of an article. Not all of these questions apply to every publication or every type of study. Further information on the writing of scientific publications is supplied by Gardner et al. ( 19 ), Altman ( 7 ), and Altman et al. ( 22 ). Gardner et al. ( 23 ), Altman ( 7 ), and the CONSORT Statement ( 12 ) provide checklists to assist the evaluation of the statistical content of medical studies.

Critical questions

  • Does the study pose scientifically interesting questions?
  • Are statements and numerical data supported by literature citations?
  • Is the topic of the study medically relevant?
  • Is the study innovative?
  • Does the study investigate the predefined study goals?
  • Is the study design apt to address the aims and/or hypotheses?
  • Did practical difficulties (e.g. in recruitment or loss to follow-up) lead to major compromises in study implementation compared with the study protocol?
  • Was the number of missing values too large to permit meaningful analysis?
  • Was the number of cases too small and thus the statistical power of the study too low?
  • Was the course of the study poorly or inadequately monitored (missing values, confounding, time infringements)?
  • Do the data support the authors’ conclusions?
  • Do the authors and/or the sponsor of the study have irreconcilable financial or ideological conflicts of interest?

Acknowledgments

Translated from the original German by David Roseveare.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest as defined by the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

How to Critically Analyse an Article

Critical analysis refers to the skill required to evaluate an author’s work. Students are frequently asked to critically analyse a particular journal. The analysis is designed to enhance the reader’s understanding of the thesis and content of the article, and crucially is subjective, because a piece of critical analysis writing is a way for the writer to express their opinions, analysis, and evaluation of the article in question. In essence, the article needs to be broken down into parts, each one analysed separately and then brought together as one piece of critical analysis of the whole.

Key point: you need to be aware that when you are analysing an article your goal is to ensure that your readers understand the main points of the paper with ease. This means demonstrating critical thinking skills, judgement, and evaluation to illustrate how you came to your conclusions and opinions on the work. This might sound simple, and it can be, if you follow our guide to critically analyse an article:

  • Before you start your essay, you should read through the paper at least three times.
  • The first time ensures you understand, the second allows you to examine the structure of the work and the third enables you to pick out the key points and focus of the thesis statement given by the author (if there is one of course!). During these reads and re-reads you can set down bullet points which will eventually frame your outline and draft for the final work.
  • Look for the purpose of the article – is the writer trying to inform through facts and research, are they trying to persuade through logical argument, or are they simply trying to entertain and create an emotional response. Examine your own responses to the article and this will guide to the purpose.
  • When you start writing your analysis, avoid phrases such as “I think/believe”, “In my opinion”. The analysis is of the paper, not your views and perspectives.
  • Ensure you have clearly indicated the subject of the article so that is evident to the reader.
  • Look for both strengths and weaknesses in the work – and always support your assertions with credible, viable sources that are clearly referenced at the end of your work.
  • Be open-minded and objective, rely on facts and evidence as you pull your work together.

Structure for Critical Analysis of an Article

Remember, your essay should be in three mains sections: the introduction, the main body, and a conclusion.

Introduction

Your introduction should commence by indicating the title of the work being analysed, including author and date of publication. This should be followed by an indication of the main themes in the thesis statement. Once you have provided the information about the author’s paper, you should then develop your thesis statement which sets out what you intend to achieve or prove with your critical analysis of the article.

Key point: your introduction should be short, succinct and draw your readers in. Keep it simple and concise but interesting enough to encourage further reading.

Overview of the paper

This is an important section to include when writing a critical analysis of an article because it answers the four “w’s”, of what, why, who, when and also the how. This section should include a brief overview of the key ideas in the article, along with the structure, style and dominant point of view expressed. For example,

“The focus of this article is… based on work undertaken…  The main thrust of the thesis is that… which is the foundation for an argument which suggests. The conclusion from the authors is that…. However, it can be argued that…

Once you have given the overview and outline, you can then move onto the more detailed analysis.

For each point you make about the article, you should contain this in a separate paragraph. Introduce the point you wish to make, regarding what you see as a strength or weakness of the work, provide evidence for your perspective from reliable and credible sources, and indicate how the authors have achieved, or not their goal in relation to the points made. For each point, you should identify whether the paper is objective, informative, persuasive, and sufficiently unbiased. In addition, identify whether the target audience for the work has been correctly addressed, the survey instruments used are appropriate and the results are presented in a clear and concise way.

If the authors have used tables, figures or graphs do they back up the conclusions made? If not, why not? Again, back up your statements with reliable hard evidence and credible sources, fully referenced at the end of your work.

In the same way that an introduction opens up the analysis to readers, the conclusion should close it. Clearly, concisely and without the addition of any new information not included in the body paragraph.

Key points for a strong conclusion include restating your thesis statement, paraphrased, with a summary of the evidence for the accuracy of your views, combined with identification of how the article could have been improved – in other words, asking the reader to take action.

Key phrases for Critical Analysis of an article

  • This article has value because it…
  • There is a clear bias within this article based on the focus on…
  • It appears that the assumptions made do not correlate with the information presented…
  • Aspects of the work suggest that…
  • The proposal is therefore that…
  • The evidence presented supports the view that…
  • The evidence presented however overlooks…
  • Whilst the author’s view is generally accurate, it can also be indicated that…
  • Closer examination suggests there is an omission in relation to

You may also like

How to Critically Analyse

  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published: 19 February 2024

‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice

  • Annette Boaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1294 1 ,
  • Juan Baeza 2 ,
  • Alec Fraser   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1121-1551 2 &
  • Erik Persson 3  

Implementation Science volume  19 , Article number:  15 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1758 Accesses

68 Altmetric

Metrics details

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of strategies have been developed to support the implementation of research into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to update and extend two previous reviews of systematic reviews of strategies designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice.

We developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the previous reviews to identify studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. The search was performed in June 2022 in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a quality assessment checklist. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. Data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

We identified 32 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2022. The reviews are mainly of multi-faceted interventions ( n  = 20) although there are reviews focusing on single strategies (ICT, educational, reminders, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, social media and toolkits). The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Furthermore, a lot of nuance lies behind these headline findings, and this is increasingly commented upon in the reviews themselves.

Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been identified. We need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of research perspectives (including social science) in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed.

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

Considerable time and money is invested in implementing and evaluating strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.

The growing body of evidence is not providing the anticipated clear lessons to support improved implementation.

Instead what is needed is better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice.

This would involve a more central role in implementation science for a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences and for greater use of different types of synthesis, such as realist synthesis.

Introduction

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice [ 1 , 2 ]. In recent years researchers have worked to improve the consistency in the ways in which these interventions (often called strategies) are described to support their evaluation. One notable development has been the emergence of Implementation Science as a field focusing explicitly on “the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice” ([ 3 ] p. 1). The work of implementation science focuses on closing, or at least narrowing, the gap between research and practice. One contribution has been to map existing interventions, identifying 73 discreet strategies to support research implementation [ 4 ] which have been grouped into 9 clusters [ 5 ]. The authors note that they have not considered the evidence of effectiveness of the individual strategies and that a next step is to understand better which strategies perform best in which combinations and for what purposes [ 4 ]. Other authors have noted that there is also scope to learn more from other related fields of study such as policy implementation [ 6 ] and to draw on methods designed to support the evaluation of complex interventions [ 7 ].

The increase in activity designed to support the implementation of research into practice and improvements in reporting provided the impetus for an update of a review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to support the use of research in clinical practice [ 8 ] which was itself an update of the review conducted by Grimshaw and colleagues in 2001. The 2001 review [ 9 ] identified 41 reviews considering a range of strategies including educational interventions, audit and feedback, computerised decision support to financial incentives and combined interventions. The authors concluded that all the interventions had the potential to promote the uptake of evidence in practice, although no one intervention seemed to be more effective than the others in all settings. They concluded that combined interventions were more likely to be effective than single interventions. The 2011 review identified a further 13 systematic reviews containing 313 discrete primary studies. Consistent with the previous review, four main strategy types were identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs). Nine of the reviews reported on MFIs. The review highlighted the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. MFIs claimed an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, although effect sizes remained small to moderate and this improvement in effectiveness relating to MFIs has been questioned in a subsequent review [ 10 ]. In updating the review, we anticipated a larger pool of reviews and an opportunity to consolidate learning from more recent systematic reviews of interventions.

This review updates and extends our previous review of systematic reviews of interventions designed to implement research evidence into clinical practice. To identify potentially relevant peer-reviewed research papers, we developed a comprehensive systematic literature search strategy based on the terms used in the Grimshaw et al. [ 9 ] and Boaz, Baeza and Fraser [ 8 ] overview articles. To ensure optimal retrieval, our search strategy was refined with support from an expert university librarian, considering the ongoing improvements in the development of search filters for systematic reviews since our first review [ 11 ]. We also wanted to include technology-related terms (e.g. apps, algorithms, machine learning, artificial intelligence) to find studies that explored interventions based on the use of technological innovations as mechanistic tools for increasing the use of evidence into practice (see Additional file 1 : Appendix A for full search strategy).

The search was performed in June 2022 in the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Epistemonikos. We searched for articles published since the 2011 review. We searched from January 2010 up to June 2022 and applied no language restrictions. Reference lists of relevant papers were also examined.

We uploaded the results using EPPI-Reviewer, a web-based tool that facilitated semi-automation of the screening process and removal of duplicate studies. We made particular use of a priority screening function to reduce screening workload and avoid ‘data deluge’ [ 12 ]. Through machine learning, one reviewer screened a smaller number of records ( n  = 1200) to train the software to predict whether a given record was more likely to be relevant or irrelevant, thus pulling the relevant studies towards the beginning of the screening process. This automation did not replace manual work but helped the reviewer to identify eligible studies more quickly. During the selection process, we included studies that looked explicitly at interventions designed to turn research evidence into practice. Studies were included if they met the following pre-determined inclusion criteria:

The study was a systematic review

Search terms were included

Focused on the implementation of research evidence into practice

The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed as part of the review

Study populations included healthcare providers and patients. The EPOC taxonomy [ 13 ] was used to categorise the strategies. The EPOC taxonomy has four domains: delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements and implementation strategies. The implementation strategies domain includes 20 strategies targeted at healthcare workers. Numerous EPOC strategies were assessed in the review including educational strategies, local opinion leaders, reminders, ICT-focused approaches and audit and feedback. Some strategies that did not fit easily within the EPOC categories were also included. These were social media strategies and toolkits, and multi-faceted interventions (MFIs) (see Table  2 ). Some systematic reviews included comparisons of different interventions while other reviews compared one type of intervention against a control group. Outcomes related to improvements in health care processes or patient well-being. Numerous individual study types (RCT, CCT, BA, ITS) were included within the systematic reviews.

We excluded papers that:

Focused on changing patient rather than provider behaviour

Had no demonstrable outcomes

Made unclear or no reference to research evidence

The last of these criteria was sometimes difficult to judge, and there was considerable discussion amongst the research team as to whether the link between research evidence and practice was sufficiently explicit in the interventions analysed. As we discussed in the previous review [ 8 ] in the field of healthcare, the principle of evidence-based practice is widely acknowledged and tools to change behaviour such as guidelines are often seen to be an implicit codification of evidence, despite the fact that this is not always the case.

Reviewers employed a two-stage process to select papers for inclusion. First, all titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer to determine whether the study met the inclusion criteria. Two papers [ 14 , 15 ] were identified that fell just before the 2010 cut-off. As they were not identified in the searches for the first review [ 8 ] they were included and progressed to assessment. Each paper was rated as include, exclude or maybe. The full texts of 111 relevant papers were assessed independently by at least two authors. To reduce the risk of bias, papers were excluded following discussion between all members of the team. 32 papers met the inclusion criteria and proceeded to data extraction. The study selection procedure is documented in a PRISMA literature flow diagram (see Fig.  1 ). We were able to include French, Spanish and Portuguese papers in the selection reflecting the language skills in the study team, but none of the papers identified met the inclusion criteria. Other non- English language papers were excluded.

figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. Source: authors

One reviewer extracted data on strategy type, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact from the included studies. Two reviewers then independently read each paper and noted key findings and broad themes of interest which were then discussed amongst the wider authorial team. Two independent reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using a Quality Assessment Checklist based on Oxman and Guyatt [ 16 ] and Francke et al. [ 17 ]. Each study was rated a quality score ranging from 1 (extensive flaws) to 7 (minimal flaws) (see Additional file 2 : Appendix B). All disagreements were resolved through discussion. Studies were not excluded in this updated overview based on methodological quality as we aimed to reflect the full extent of current research into this topic.

The extracted data were synthesised using descriptive and narrative techniques to identify themes and patterns in the data linked to intervention strategies, targeted behaviours, study settings and study outcomes.

Thirty-two studies were included in the systematic review. Table 1. provides a detailed overview of the included systematic reviews comprising reference, strategy type, quality score, number of included studies, local, target population, effectiveness and scope of impact (see Table  1. at the end of the manuscript). Overall, the quality of the studies was high. Twenty-three studies scored 7, six studies scored 6, one study scored 5, one study scored 4 and one study scored 3. The primary focus of the review was on reviews of effectiveness studies, but a small number of reviews did include data from a wider range of methods including qualitative studies which added to the analysis in the papers [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. In this section, we discuss the different EPOC-defined implementation strategies in turn. Interestingly, we found only two ‘new’ approaches in this review that did not fit into the existing EPOC approaches. These are a review focused on the use of social media and a review considering toolkits. In addition to single interventions, we also discuss multi-faceted interventions. These were the most common intervention approach overall. A summary is provided in Table  2 .

Educational strategies

The overview identified three systematic reviews focusing on educational strategies. Grudniewicz et al. [ 22 ] explored the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour and patient outcomes and concluded they were not effective in any of these aspects. Koota, Kääriäinen and Melender [ 23 ] focused on educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency room/accident and emergency nurses and found that interventions involving face-to-face contact led to significant or highly significant effects on patient benefits and emergency nurses’ knowledge, skills and behaviour. Interventions using written self-directed learning materials also led to significant improvements in nurses’ knowledge of evidence-based practice. Although the quality of the studies was high, the review primarily included small studies with low response rates, and many of them relied on self-assessed outcomes; consequently, the strength of the evidence for these outcomes is modest. Wu et al. [ 20 ] questioned if educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes. Although based on evaluation projects and qualitative data, their results also suggest that positive changes on patient outcomes can be made following the implementation of specific evidence-based approaches (or projects). The differing positive outcomes for educational strategies aimed at nurses might indicate that the target audience is important.

Local opinion leaders

Flodgren et al. [ 24 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on opinion leaders. The review found that local opinion leaders alone, or in combination with other interventions, can be effective in promoting evidence‐based practice, but this varies both within and between studies and the effect on patient outcomes is uncertain. The review found that, overall, any intervention involving opinion leaders probably improves healthcare professionals’ compliance with evidence-based practice but varies within and across studies. However, how opinion leaders had an impact could not be determined because of insufficient details were provided, illustrating that reporting specific details in published studies is important if diffusion of effective methods of increasing evidence-based practice is to be spread across a system. The usefulness of this review is questionable because it cannot provide evidence of what is an effective opinion leader, whether teams of opinion leaders or a single opinion leader are most effective, or the most effective methods used by opinion leaders.

Pantoja et al. [ 26 ] was the only systemic review focusing solely on manually generated reminders delivered on paper included in the overview. The review explored how these affected professional practice and patient outcomes. The review concluded that manually generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably led to small to moderate increases in adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single quality improvement intervention. However, the authors indicated that this intervention would make little or no difference to patient outcomes. The authors state that such a low-tech intervention may be useful in low- and middle-income countries where paper records are more likely to be the norm.

ICT-focused approaches

The three ICT-focused reviews [ 14 , 27 , 28 ] showed mixed results. Jamal, McKenzie and Clark [ 14 ] explored the impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care. They examined the impact of electronic health record, computerised provider order-entry, or decision support system. This showed a positive improvement in adherence to evidence-based guidelines but not to patient outcomes. The number of studies included in the review was low and so a conclusive recommendation could not be reached based on this review. Similarly, Brown et al. [ 28 ] found that technology-enabled knowledge translation interventions may improve knowledge of health professionals, but all eight studies raised concerns of bias. The De Angelis et al. [ 27 ] review was more promising, reporting that ICT can be a good way of disseminating clinical practice guidelines but conclude that it is unclear which type of ICT method is the most effective.

Audit and feedback

Sykes, McAnuff and Kolehmainen [ 29 ] examined whether audit and feedback were effective in dementia care and concluded that it remains unclear which ingredients of audit and feedback are successful as the reviewed papers illustrated large variations in the effectiveness of interventions using audit and feedback.

Non-EPOC listed strategies: social media, toolkits

There were two new (non-EPOC listed) intervention types identified in this review compared to the 2011 review — fewer than anticipated. We categorised a third — ‘care bundles’ [ 36 ] as a multi-faceted intervention due to its description in practice and a fourth — ‘Technology Enhanced Knowledge Transfer’ [ 28 ] was classified as an ICT-focused approach. The first new strategy was identified in Bhatt et al.’s [ 30 ] systematic review of the use of social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. They reported that the use of social media resulted in a significant improvement in knowledge and compliance with evidence-based guidelines compared with more traditional methods. They noted that a wide selection of different healthcare professionals and patients engaged with this type of social media and its global reach may be significant for low- and middle-income countries. This review was also noteworthy for developing a simple stepwise method for using social media for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. However, it is debatable whether social media can be classified as an intervention or just a different way of delivering an intervention. For example, the review discussed involving opinion leaders and patient advocates through social media. However, this was a small review that included only five studies, so further research in this new area is needed. Yamada et al. [ 31 ] draw on 39 studies to explore the application of toolkits, 18 of which had toolkits embedded within larger KT interventions, and 21 of which evaluated toolkits as standalone interventions. The individual component strategies of the toolkits were highly variable though the authors suggest that they align most closely with educational strategies. The authors conclude that toolkits as either standalone strategies or as part of MFIs hold some promise for facilitating evidence use in practice but caution that the quality of many of the primary studies included is considered weak limiting these findings.

Multi-faceted interventions

The majority of the systematic reviews ( n  = 20) reported on more than one intervention type. Some of these systematic reviews focus exclusively on multi-faceted interventions, whilst others compare different single or combined interventions aimed at achieving similar outcomes in particular settings. While these two approaches are often described in a similar way, they are actually quite distinct from each other as the former report how multiple strategies may be strategically combined in pursuance of an agreed goal, whilst the latter report how different strategies may be incidentally used in sometimes contrasting settings in the pursuance of similar goals. Ariyo et al. [ 35 ] helpfully summarise five key elements often found in effective MFI strategies in LMICs — but which may also be transferrable to HICs. First, effective MFIs encourage a multi-disciplinary approach acknowledging the roles played by different professional groups to collectively incorporate evidence-informed practice. Second, they utilise leadership drawing on a wide set of clinical and non-clinical actors including managers and even government officials. Third, multiple types of educational practices are utilised — including input from patients as stakeholders in some cases. Fourth, protocols, checklists and bundles are used — most effectively when local ownership is encouraged. Finally, most MFIs included an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation [ 35 ]. In contrast, other studies offer little information about the nature of the different MFI components of included studies which makes it difficult to extrapolate much learning from them in relation to why or how MFIs might affect practice (e.g. [ 28 , 38 ]). Ultimately, context matters, which some review authors argue makes it difficult to say with real certainty whether single or MFI strategies are superior (e.g. [ 21 , 27 ]). Taking all the systematic reviews together we may conclude that MFIs appear to be more likely to generate positive results than single interventions (e.g. [ 34 , 45 ]) though other reviews should make us cautious (e.g. [ 32 , 43 ]).

While multi-faceted interventions still seem to be more effective than single-strategy interventions, there were important distinctions between how the results of reviews of MFIs are interpreted in this review as compared to the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ], reflecting greater nuance and debate in the literature. This was particularly noticeable where the effectiveness of MFIs was compared to single strategies, reflecting developments widely discussed in previous studies [ 10 ]. We found that most systematic reviews are bounded by their clinical, professional, spatial, system, or setting criteria and often seek to draw out implications for the implementation of evidence in their areas of specific interest (such as nursing or acute care). Frequently this means combining all relevant studies to explore the respective foci of each systematic review. Therefore, most reviews we categorised as MFIs actually include highly variable numbers and combinations of intervention strategies and highly heterogeneous original study designs. This makes statistical analyses of the type used by Squires et al. [ 10 ] on the three reviews in their paper not possible. Further, it also makes extrapolating findings and commenting on broad themes complex and difficult. This may suggest that future research should shift its focus from merely examining ‘what works’ to ‘what works where and what works for whom’ — perhaps pointing to the value of realist approaches to these complex review topics [ 48 , 49 ] and other more theory-informed approaches [ 50 ].

Some reviews have a relatively small number of studies (i.e. fewer than 10) and the authors are often understandably reluctant to engage with wider debates about the implications of their findings. Other larger studies do engage in deeper discussions about internal comparisons of findings across included studies and also contextualise these in wider debates. Some of the most informative studies (e.g. [ 35 , 40 ]) move beyond EPOC categories and contextualise MFIs within wider systems thinking and implementation theory. This distinction between MFIs and single interventions can actually be very useful as it offers lessons about the contexts in which individual interventions might have bounded effectiveness (i.e. educational interventions for individual change). Taken as a whole, this may also then help in terms of how and when to conjoin single interventions into effective MFIs.

In the two previous reviews, a consistent finding was that MFIs were more effective than single interventions [ 8 , 9 ]. However, like Squires et al. [ 10 ] this overview is more equivocal on this important issue. There are four points which may help account for the differences in findings in this regard. Firstly, the diversity of the systematic reviews in terms of clinical topic or setting is an important factor. Secondly, there is heterogeneity of the studies within the included systematic reviews themselves. Thirdly, there is a lack of consistency with regards to the definition and strategies included within of MFIs. Finally, there are epistemological differences across the papers and the reviews. This means that the results that are presented depend on the methods used to measure, report, and synthesise them. For instance, some reviews highlight that education strategies can be useful to improve provider understanding — but without wider organisational or system-level change, they may struggle to deliver sustained transformation [ 19 , 44 ].

It is also worth highlighting the importance of the theory of change underlying the different interventions. Where authors of the systematic reviews draw on theory, there is space to discuss/explain findings. We note a distinction between theoretical and atheoretical systematic review discussion sections. Atheoretical reviews tend to present acontextual findings (for instance, one study found very positive results for one intervention, and this gets highlighted in the abstract) whilst theoretically informed reviews attempt to contextualise and explain patterns within the included studies. Theory-informed systematic reviews seem more likely to offer more profound and useful insights (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ]). We find that the most insightful systematic reviews of MFIs engage in theoretical generalisation — they attempt to go beyond the data of individual studies and discuss the wider implications of the findings of the studies within their reviews drawing on implementation theory. At the same time, they highlight the active role of context and the wider relational and system-wide issues linked to implementation. It is these types of investigations that can help providers further develop evidence-based practice.

This overview has identified a small, but insightful set of papers that interrogate and help theorise why, how, for whom, and in which circumstances it might be the case that MFIs are superior (see [ 19 , 35 , 40 ] once more). At the level of this overview — and in most of the systematic reviews included — it appears to be the case that MFIs struggle with the question of attribution. In addition, there are other important elements that are often unmeasured, or unreported (e.g. costs of the intervention — see [ 40 ]). Finally, the stronger systematic reviews [ 19 , 35 , 40 , 43 , 45 ] engage with systems issues, human agency and context [ 18 ] in a way that was not evident in the systematic reviews identified in the previous reviews [ 8 , 9 ]. The earlier reviews lacked any theory of change that might explain why MFIs might be more effective than single ones — whereas now some systematic reviews do this, which enables them to conclude that sometimes single interventions can still be more effective.

As Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 7) note ‘Study findings concerning the effectiveness of various approaches are continuously synthesized and assembled in systematic reviews’. We may have gone as far as we can in understanding the implementation of evidence through systematic reviews of single and multi-faceted interventions and the next step would be to conduct more research exploring the complex and situated nature of evidence used in clinical practice and by particular professional groups. This would further build on the nuanced discussion and conclusion sections in a subset of the papers we reviewed. This might also support the field to move away from isolating individual implementation strategies [ 6 ] to explore the complex processes involving a range of actors with differing capacities [ 51 ] working in diverse organisational cultures. Taxonomies of implementation strategies do not fully account for the complex process of implementation, which involves a range of different actors with different capacities and skills across multiple system levels. There is plenty of work to build on, particularly in the social sciences, which currently sits at the margins of debates about evidence implementation (see for example, Normalisation Process Theory [ 52 ]).

There are several changes that we have identified in this overview of systematic reviews in comparison to the review we published in 2011 [ 8 ]. A consistent and welcome finding is that the overall quality of the systematic reviews themselves appears to have improved between the two reviews, although this is not reflected upon in the papers. This is exhibited through better, clearer reporting mechanisms in relation to the mechanics of the reviews, alongside a greater attention to, and deeper description of, how potential biases in included papers are discussed. Additionally, there is an increased, but still limited, inclusion of original studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries as opposed to just high-income countries. Importantly, we found that many of these systematic reviews are attuned to, and comment upon the contextual distinctions of pursuing evidence-informed interventions in health care settings in different economic settings. Furthermore, systematic reviews included in this updated article cover a wider set of clinical specialities (both within and beyond hospital settings) and have a focus on a wider set of healthcare professions — discussing both similarities, differences and inter-professional challenges faced therein, compared to the earlier reviews. These wider ranges of studies highlight that a particular intervention or group of interventions may work well for one professional group but be ineffective for another. This diversity of study settings allows us to consider the important role context (in its many forms) plays on implementing evidence into practice. Examining the complex and varied context of health care will help us address what Nilsen et al. ([ 6 ] p. 1) described as, ‘society’s health problems [that] require research-based knowledge acted on by healthcare practitioners together with implementation of political measures from governmental agencies’. This will help us shift implementation science to move, ‘beyond a success or failure perspective towards improved analysis of variables that could explain the impact of the implementation process’ ([ 6 ] p. 2).

This review brings together 32 papers considering individual and multi-faceted interventions designed to support the use of evidence in clinical practice. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care). There is much less evidence that these strategies have shifted patient outcomes. Combined with the two previous reviews, 86 systematic reviews of strategies to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice have been conducted. As a whole, this substantial body of knowledge struggles to tell us more about the use of individual and MFIs than: ‘it depends’. To really move forwards in addressing the gap between research evidence and practice, we may need to shift the emphasis away from isolating individual and multi-faceted interventions to better understanding and building more situated, relational and organisational capability to support the use of research in clinical practice. This will involve drawing on a wider range of perspectives, especially from the social, economic, political and behavioural sciences in primary studies and diversifying the types of synthesis undertaken to include approaches such as realist synthesis which facilitate exploration of the context in which strategies are employed. Harvey et al. [ 53 ] suggest that when context is likely to be critical to implementation success there are a range of primary research approaches (participatory research, realist evaluation, developmental evaluation, ethnography, quality/ rapid cycle improvement) that are likely to be appropriate and insightful. While these approaches often form part of implementation studies in the form of process evaluations, they are usually relatively small scale in relation to implementation research as a whole. As a result, the findings often do not make it into the subsequent systematic reviews. This review provides further evidence that we need to bring qualitative approaches in from the periphery to play a central role in many implementation studies and subsequent evidence syntheses. It would be helpful for systematic reviews, at the very least, to include more detail about the interventions and their implementation in terms of how and why they worked.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Before and after study

Controlled clinical trial

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care

High-income countries

Information and Communications Technology

Interrupted time series

Knowledge translation

Low- and middle-income countries

Randomised controlled trial

Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362:1225–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14546-1 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Green LA, Seifert CM. Translation of research into practice: why we can’t “just do it.” J Am Board Fam Pract. 2005;18:541–5. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.18.6.541 .

Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2006;1:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, Damschroder LJ, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 .

Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, et al. Never the twain shall meet? - a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2013;8:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-63 .

Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Eldh AC, et al. A realist process evaluation within the Facilitating Implementation of Research Evidence (FIRE) cluster randomised controlled international trial: an exemplar. Implementation Sci. 2018;13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0811-0 .

Boaz A, Baeza J, Fraser A, European Implementation Score Collaborative Group (EIS). Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:212. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-212 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior – an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001;39 8Suppl 2:II2–45.

Google Scholar  

Squires JE, Sullivan K, Eccles MP, et al. Are multifaceted interventions more effective than single-component interventions in changing health-care professionals’ behaviours? An overview of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2014;9:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 .

Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109:561–74. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1223 .

Thomas JM. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation? OA Evid Based Med. 2013;1:1–6.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). The EPOC taxonomy of health systems interventions. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2016. epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-taxonomy . Accessed 9 Oct 2023.

Jamal A, McKenzie K, Clark M. The impact of health information technology on the quality of medical and health care: a systematic review. Health Inf Manag. 2009;38:26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/183335830903800305 .

Menon A, Korner-Bitensky N, Kastner M, et al. Strategies for rehabilitation professionals to move evidence-based knowledge into practice: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41:1024–32. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0451 .

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-b .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-8-38 .

Jones CA, Roop SC, Pohar SL, et al. Translating knowledge in rehabilitation: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2015;95:663–77. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130512 .

Scott D, Albrecht L, O’Leary K, Ball GDC, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions. Implement Sci. 2012;7:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-70 .

Wu Y, Brettle A, Zhou C, Ou J, et al. Do educational interventions aimed at nurses to support the implementation of evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;70:109–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.08.026 .

Yost J, Ganann R, Thompson D, Aloweni F, et al. The effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for promoting evidence-informed decision-making among nurses in tertiary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0286-1 .

Grudniewicz A, Kealy R, Rodseth RN, Hamid J, et al. What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Implement Sci. 2015;10:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0347-5 .

Koota E, Kääriäinen M, Melender HL. Educational interventions promoting evidence-based practice among emergency nurses: a systematic review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2018;41:51–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2018.06.004 .

Flodgren G, O’Brien MA, Parmelli E, et al. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000125.pub5 .

Arditi C, Rège-Walther M, Durieux P, et al. Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001175.pub4 .

Pantoja T, Grimshaw JM, Colomer N, et al. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001174.pub4 .

De Angelis G, Davies B, King J, McEwan J, et al. Information and communication technologies for the dissemination of clinical practice guidelines to health professionals: a systematic review. JMIR Med Educ. 2016;2:e16. https://doi.org/10.2196/mededu.6288 .

Brown A, Barnes C, Byaruhanga J, McLaughlin M, et al. Effectiveness of technology-enabled knowledge translation strategies in improving the use of research in public health: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e17274. https://doi.org/10.2196/17274 .

Sykes MJ, McAnuff J, Kolehmainen N. When is audit and feedback effective in dementia care? A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.10.013 .

Bhatt NR, Czarniecki SW, Borgmann H, et al. A systematic review of the use of social media for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.10.008 .

Yamada J, Shorkey A, Barwick M, Widger K, et al. The effectiveness of toolkits as knowledge translation strategies for integrating evidence into clinical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006808 .

Afari-Asiedu S, Abdulai MA, Tostmann A, et al. Interventions to improve dispensing of antibiotics at the community level in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. J Glob Antimicrob Resist. 2022;29:259–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgar.2022.03.009 .

Boonacker CW, Hoes AW, Dikhoff MJ, Schilder AG, et al. Interventions in health care professionals to improve treatment in children with upper respiratory tract infections. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;74:1113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2010.07.008 .

Al Zoubi FM, Menon A, Mayo NE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the uptake of clinical practice guidelines and best practices among musculoskeletal professionals: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3253-0 .

Ariyo P, Zayed B, Riese V, Anton B, et al. Implementation strategies to reduce surgical site infections: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019;3:287–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2018.355 .

Borgert MJ, Goossens A, Dongelmans DA. What are effective strategies for the implementation of care bundles on ICUs: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2015;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0306-1 .

Cahill LS, Carey LM, Lannin NA, et al. Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012575.pub2 .

Pedersen ER, Rubenstein L, Kandrack R, Danz M, et al. Elusive search for effective provider interventions: a systematic review of provider interventions to increase adherence to evidence-based treatment for depression. Implement Sci. 2018;13:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0788-8 .

Jenkins HJ, Hancock MJ, French SD, Maher CG, et al. Effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce the use of imaging for low-back pain: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2015;187:401–8. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.141183 .

Bennett S, Laver K, MacAndrew M, Beattie E, et al. Implementation of evidence-based, non-pharmacological interventions addressing behavior and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review focused on implementation strategies. Int Psychogeriatr. 2021;33:947–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220001702 .

Noonan VK, Wolfe DL, Thorogood NP, et al. Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2014;52:578–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.62 .

Albrecht L, Archibald M, Snelgrove-Clarke E, et al. Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies to promote research uptake in child health settings. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31:235–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2015.12.002 .

Campbell A, Louie-Poon S, Slater L, et al. Knowledge translation strategies used by healthcare professionals in child health settings: an updated systematic review. J Pediatr Nurs. 2019;47:114–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2019.04.026 .

Bird ML, Miller T, Connell LA, et al. Moving stroke rehabilitation evidence into practice: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33:1586–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215519847253 .

Goorts K, Dizon J, Milanese S. The effectiveness of implementation strategies for promoting evidence informed interventions in allied healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06190-0 .

Zadro JR, O’Keeffe M, Allison JL, Lembke KA, et al. Effectiveness of implementation strategies to improve adherence of physical therapist treatment choices to clinical practice guidelines for musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review. Phys Ther. 2020;100:1516–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa101 .

Van der Veer SN, Jager KJ, Nache AM, et al. Translating knowledge on best practice into improving quality of RRT care: a systematic review of implementation strategies. Kidney Int. 2011;80:1021–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2011.222 .

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, et al. Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10Suppl 1:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530 .

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2012;7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33 .

Johnson MJ, May CR. Promoting professional behaviour change in healthcare: what interventions work, and why? A theory-led overview of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e008592. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008592 .

Metz A, Jensen T, Farley A, Boaz A, et al. Is implementation research out of step with implementation practice? Pathways to effective implementation support over the last decade. Implement Res Pract. 2022;3:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221105585 .

May CR, Finch TL, Cornford J, Exley C, et al. Integrating telecare for chronic disease management in the community: What needs to be done? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-131 .

Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Wilson P, et al. Connecting the science and practice of implementation – applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research. Front Health Serv. 2023;3:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2023.1162762 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Kathryn Oliver for her support in the planning the review, Professor Steve Hanney for reading and commenting on the final manuscript and the staff at LSHTM library for their support in planning and conducting the literature search.

This study was supported by LSHTM’s Research England QR strategic priorities funding allocation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Grant number NIHR200152. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or Research England.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, The Policy Institute, King’s College London, Virginia Woolf Building, 22 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6LE, UK

Annette Boaz

King’s Business School, King’s College London, 30 Aldwych, London, WC2B 4BG, UK

Juan Baeza & Alec Fraser

Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Campus Universitário Reitor João Davi Ferreira Lima, Florianópolis, SC, 88.040-900, Brazil

Erik Persson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AB led the conceptual development and structure of the manuscript. EP conducted the searches and data extraction. All authors contributed to screening and quality appraisal. EP and AF wrote the first draft of the methods section. AB, JB and AF performed result synthesis and contributed to the analyses. AB wrote the first draft of the manuscript and incorporated feedback and revisions from all other authors. All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Boaz .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix a., additional file 2: appendix b., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Boaz, A., Baeza, J., Fraser, A. et al. ‘It depends’: what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies to use to support the use of research in clinical practice. Implementation Sci 19 , 15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

Download citation

Received : 01 November 2023

Accepted : 05 January 2024

Published : 19 February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01337-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Implementation
  • Interventions
  • Clinical practice
  • Research evidence
  • Multi-faceted

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

  • Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
  • General enquiries: [email protected]

critical analysis of research paper

  • Skip to Guides Search
  • Skip to breadcrumb
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Skip to chat link
  • Report accessibility issues and get help
  • Go to Penn Libraries Home
  • Go to Franklin catalog

Critical Writing Program: Decision Making - Spring 2024: Researching the White Paper

  • Getting started
  • News and Opinion Sites
  • Academic Sources
  • Grey Literature
  • Substantive News Sources
  • What to Do When You Are Stuck
  • Understanding a citation
  • Examples of Quotation
  • Examples of Paraphrase
  • Chicago Manual of Style: Citing Images
  • Researching the Op-Ed
  • Researching Prospective Employers
  • Resume Resources
  • Cover Letter Resources

Research the White Paper

Researching the White Paper:

The process of researching and composing a white paper shares some similarities with the kind of research and writing one does for a high school or college research paper. What’s important for writers of white papers to grasp, however, is how much this genre differs from a research paper.  First, the author of a white paper already recognizes that there is a problem to be solved, a decision to be made, and the job of the author is to provide readers with substantive information to help them make some kind of decision--which may include a decision to do more research because major gaps remain. 

Thus, a white paper author would not “brainstorm” a topic. Instead, the white paper author would get busy figuring out how the problem is defined by those who are experiencing it as a problem. Typically that research begins in popular culture--social media, surveys, interviews, newspapers. Once the author has a handle on how the problem is being defined and experienced, its history and its impact, what people in the trenches believe might be the best or worst ways of addressing it, the author then will turn to academic scholarship as well as “grey” literature (more about that later).  Unlike a school research paper, the author does not set out to argue for or against a particular position, and then devote the majority of effort to finding sources to support the selected position.  Instead, the author sets out in good faith to do as much fact-finding as possible, and thus research is likely to present multiple, conflicting, and overlapping perspectives. When people research out of a genuine desire to understand and solve a problem, they listen to every source that may offer helpful information. They will thus have to do much more analysis, synthesis, and sorting of that information, which will often not fall neatly into a “pro” or “con” camp:  Solution A may, for example, solve one part of the problem but exacerbate another part of the problem. Solution C may sound like what everyone wants, but what if it’s built on a set of data that have been criticized by another reliable source?  And so it goes. 

For example, if you are trying to write a white paper on the opioid crisis, you may focus on the value of  providing free, sterilized needles--which do indeed reduce disease, and also provide an opportunity for the health care provider distributing them to offer addiction treatment to the user. However, the free needles are sometimes discarded on the ground, posing a danger to others; or they may be shared; or they may encourage more drug usage. All of those things can be true at once; a reader will want to know about all of these considerations in order to make an informed decision. That is the challenging job of the white paper author.     
 The research you do for your white paper will require that you identify a specific problem, seek popular culture sources to help define the problem, its history, its significance and impact for people affected by it.  You will then delve into academic and grey literature to learn about the way scholars and others with professional expertise answer these same questions. In this way, you will create creating a layered, complex portrait that provides readers with a substantive exploration useful for deliberating and decision-making. You will also likely need to find or create images, including tables, figures, illustrations or photographs, and you will document all of your sources. 

Business & Research Support Services Librarian

Profile Photo

Connect to a Librarian Live Chat or "Ask a Question"

  • Librarians staff live chat from 9-5 Monday through Friday . You can also text to chat: 215-543-7674
  • You can submit a question 24 hours a day and we aim to respond within 24 hours 
  • You can click the "Schedule Appointment" button above in librarian's profile box (to the left), to schedule a consultation with her in person or by video conference.  
  • You can also make an appointment with a  Librarian by subject specialization . 
  • Connect by email with a subject librarian

Find more easy contacts at our Quick Start Guide

  • Next: Getting started >>
  • Last Updated: Feb 15, 2024 12:28 PM
  • URL: https://guides.library.upenn.edu/spring2024/decision-making

IMAGES

  1. What Is a Critical Analysis Essay? Simple Guide With Examples

    critical analysis of research paper

  2. Critical Analysis Template Thomson Rivers University

    critical analysis of research paper

  3. 4 Easy Ways to Write a Critical Analysis (with Pictures)

    critical analysis of research paper

  4. Critical Analysis Of A Research Paper

    critical analysis of research paper

  5. How to Write Critical Analysis Essay with Examples

    critical analysis of research paper

  6. 50 Critical Analysis Paper Topics

    critical analysis of research paper

VIDEO

  1. Research Methods: Writing a Literature Review

  2. Module 2 (Why research is important)

  3. MDCAT result analysis @EnglishKeysAcademy

  4. Research Methods

  5. Finding HIGH-Impact Research Topics

  6. 4/19/17 Lecture on Critical Analysis of a Scientific Article by Dr. Nancy Sohler

COMMENTS

  1. Critical Analysis

    Definition: Critical analysis is a process of examining a piece of work or an idea in a systematic, objective, and analytical way. It involves breaking down complex ideas, concepts, or arguments into smaller, more manageable parts to understand them better. Types of Critical Analysis Types of Critical Analysis are as follows: Literary Analysis

  2. PDF Writing Critical Analysis Papers1

    A critical analysis paper asks the writer to make an argument about a particular book, essay, movie, etc. The goal is two fold: one, identify and explain the argument that the author is making, and two, provide your own argument about that argument.

  3. Writing a Critical Analysis

    Part 1: Introduction Identify the work being criticized. Present thesis - argument about the work. Preview your argument - what are the steps you will take to prove your argument. Part 2: Summarize Provide a short summary of the work. Present only what is needed to know to understand your argument. Part 3: Your Argument

  4. Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article

    Does the title precisely state the subject of the paper? Abstract. Read the statement of purpose in the abstract. Does it match the one in the introduction? Acknowledgments. Could the source of the research funding have influenced the research topic or conclusions? Introduction. Check the sequence of statements in the introduction.

  5. Critical Analysis: The Often-Missing Step in Conducting Literature

    Critical Analysis: The Often-Missing Step in Conducting Literature Review Research Joan E. Dodgson, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN View all authors and affiliations Volume 37, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334420977815 PDF / ePub More Literature reviews are essential in moving our evidence-base forward.

  6. How to read a paper, critical review

    A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review.

  7. How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay

    In a critical analysis essay, the author considers a piece of literature, a piece of nonfiction, or a work of art and analyzes the author or artist's points. This type of essay focuses on the author's thesis, argument, and point of view by adhering to logical reasoning and offering supporting evidence. Meet One of Your New Instructors

  8. PDF Planning and writing a critical review

    A critical review (sometimes called a critique, critical commentary, critical appraisal, critical analysis) is a detailed commentary on and critical evaluation of a text. You might carry out a critical review as a stand-alone exercise, or as part of your research and preparation for writing a literature review. The

  9. Critical Appraisal and Analysis

    Critical Analysis of the Content. ... Primary sources are the raw material of the research process. Secondary sources are based on primary sources. For example, if you were researching Konrad Adenauer's role in rebuilding West Germany after World War II, Adenauer's own writings would be one of many primary sources available on this topic. ...

  10. Finding and Evaluating Sources (Critical Analysis)

    Finding and Evaluating Sources (Critical Analysis) Fi nding Sources Identify the Research Question Before you can start research, you must first identify the research question. Your instructor will either assign a specific research question or a research topic.

  11. Critical Analysis

    A critical analysis may include supportive references like you would find in a research paper, but will generally have a much stronger emphasis on its author's interpretation than you would find in an objective research paper. ... Critical Analysis - a review of the original author's argument within the critical context of the analysis ...

  12. Critical appraisal of published research papers

    INTRODUCTION. Critical appraisal of a research paper is defined as "The process of carefully and systematically examining research to judge its trustworthiness, value and relevance in a particular context."[] Since scientific literature is rapidly expanding with more than 12,000 articles being added to the MEDLINE database per week,[] critical appraisal is very important to distinguish ...

  13. How to write a critical analysis

    Step one: Reading critically The first step in writing a critical analysis is to carefully study the source you plan to analyze. If you are writing for a class assignment, your professor may have already given you the topic to analyze in an article, short story, book, or other work. If so, you can focus your note-taking on that topic while reading.

  14. Guides: Write a Critical Review: Parts of a Critical Review

    To assert the article's practical and theoretical significance. In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include. A restatement of your overall opinion. A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source. An evaluation of the significance or success of the research.

  15. Succeeding in postgraduate study: 4.4 Applying critical and reflective

    1 Important points to consider when critically evaluating published research papers. Simple review articles (also referred to as 'narrative' or 'selective' reviews), systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide rapid overviews and 'snapshots' of progress made within a field, summarising a given topic or research area.

  16. How To Write a Critical Analysis in 5 Steps (With Tips)

    Critical analysis is the detailed examination and evaluation of another person's ideas or work. It is subjective writing as it expresses your interpretation and analysis of the work by breaking down and studying its parts.

  17. (PDF) Critical Analysis of Clinical Research Articles: A Guide for

    The components of the critical appraisal are the appropriateness of the study design for the research question and a thorough evaluation of important methodological characteristics of this...

  18. PDF Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research

    Research texts and journals refer to critiquing the literature, critical analysis, reviewing the literature, evaluation and appraisal of the literature which are in essence the same thing (Bassett and Bassett, 2003).

  19. How To Critically Analyze A Research Paper

    Originally broadcast in 2018. Reviewed and updated in Sep-2022. Presented by Dr. Amanda WelchThe mindset of a scientist should always be skeptical—of their o...

  20. Critical analysis template

    Critical analysis template. Use the templates as a guide to help you hone your ability to critique texts perfectly.Click on the following links, which will open in a new window.Critical analysis template.

  21. Critical Appraisal of Scientific Articles

    The aim of this paper is to present an accessible introduction into critical appraisal of scientific articles. ... a systematic review, or a meta-analysis. The references in review articles point the reader towards more detailed information on the topic concerned. ... How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respir Care. 2004; 49: ...

  22. [PDF] Critical Analysis of Research Papers

    Critical Analysis of Research Papers. S. Valente. Published in Journal for Nurses in Staff… 1 May 2003. Medicine. TLDR. The criteria for analysis of the sections of a research report is described and ways that sound research has improved patient care are illustrated. Expand.

  23. PDF Strategies for Essay Writing

    In a short paper—even a research paper—you don't need to provide an exhaustive summary as part of your conclusion. But you do need to make some kind of transition between your final body paragraph and your concluding paragraph. This may come in the form of a few sentences of summary. Or it may come in the form of a sentence that

  24. How to Critically Analyse an Article

    The analysis is designed to enhance the reader's understanding of the thesis and content of the article, and crucially is subjective, because a piece of critical analysis writing is a way for the writer to express their opinions, analysis, and evaluation of the article in question.

  25. 'It depends': what 86 systematic reviews tell us about what strategies

    The primary focus of the review was on reviews of effectiveness studies, but a small number of reviews did include data from a wider range of methods including qualitative studies which added to the analysis in the papers [18,19,20,21]. The majority of reviews report strategies achieving small impacts (normally on processes of care).

  26. Researching the White Paper

    Critical Writing Program: Decision Making - Spring 2024: Researching the White Paper ... Unlike a school research paper, the author does not set out to argue for or against a particular position, and then devote the majority of effort to finding sources to support the selected position. ... They will thus have to do much more analysis ...

  27. Full article: A critical review of GenAI policies in higher education

    The overarching goal of this study is to provide a critical analysis of the representation of problems in university policies regarding the use of GenAI in assessment. Specifically, we are interested in these research questions: ... Due to the space limit in a single research paper, this study is unable to present a comprehensive genealogy of ...

  28. How To Write An Analytical Essay: Writing Guide With Examples

    We can also distinguish sevaral more types of analysis essays: The first type is literary work analysis. Here you need to focus on the emotions, situations and characters, and choose a favorite quote and find its impact on the work. ... To create an amazing analytical essay, you will require to not only research and brainstorm while generating ...

  29. Targeting Child Soldiers: A Critical Analysis of International Legal

    By addressing these research objectives, the paper endeavors to provide a better understanding of the moral and legal dilemmas faced by military strategists and policymakers, ultimately contributing to the broader dialogue on the protection of children's rights and the principles of humanity in times of conflict.