Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical appraisal of the literature—its role in CPD

  • Clinical Review
  • Published:
European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Abstract

The information explosion has affected the medical as well as the lay press. Sources of literature have never been so diverse, and freedom of information legislation globally has empowered all and sundry to voice their views on all matters. This freedom is exercised with regard to medical literature in general and Women’s Health publications in particular. The implicit requirement for clinical practice to be informed by evidence (evidence-based medicine) has placed the onus on the readership of clinical literature to acquire skills in appraising such literature. The need to sift out relevant information from the burgeoning obstetrics and gynaecology literature has mandated the acquisition of skills in critical literature appraisal. This review outlines how to critically appreciate and evaluate literature generally, and as it relates to obstetrics and gynaecology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sackett DL, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WMC, Haynes RB (1997) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. Churchill-Livingstone, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. MacAuley D (1994) READER: an acronym to aid critical reading by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 44:83–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. MacAuley D, McCrum E, Brown C (1998) Randomised controlled trial of the READER method of critical appraisal in general practice. BMJ 316:1134–1137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. The Cochrane Collaboration (2005) The Cochrane Library Issue 4, Wiley

  5. Straus SE, Sackett DL (1998) Using research findings in clinical practice. BMJ 317:339–342

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Guyatt GH, Rennie D (eds) (2002) The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. In: Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA, Chicago

  7. Crombie IM (1996) The pocket guide to critical appraisal. BMJ, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH (1996) Clinical epidemiology: the essentials, 3rd edn. Williams and Williams, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  9. Greenhalgh T (1997) How to read a paper. BMJ, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF (1999) Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 281(12):1110–1111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilson P (2002) How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly. A short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the Internet. BMJ 324:598–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Sciences (South), Academic Unit of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The University of Sheffield, 4th Floor, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield S10 2SF, Sheffield, UK

    Dilly OC Anumba

Authors
  1. Dilly OC Anumba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dilly OC Anumba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anumba, D.O. Critical appraisal of the literature—its role in CPD. Eur Clinics Obstet Gynecol 1, 245–250 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11296-006-0018-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11296-006-0018-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation