Principles & Methods of Epidemiology: Paper Critique
Weighting: Paper critique: 1,500 words; 65% of overall grade
Due date: Friday 10th January 2025, 18.00 Assignment description:
This is a written assessment. This assessment will be based on the following reading: Lee et al. Moderate alcohol intake reduces risk of ischemic stroke in Korea. Neurology (85), Dec 1, 2015. You will also find the article on Blackboard.
Utilising the concepts you have learned, please write a critique of the Lee et al. (2015) journal article that identifies, evaluates, and responds to the authors’ ideas, both positively and negatively. As you complete this assessment, you may use further literature if you wish, but this is not necessary.
Please note that although guiding questions are provided, your submission should beanessay (not a series of questions and answers) and you do not need to follow the order of the guiding questions.
Critique questions:
Q1: What is the main aim or research question?
Q2: Why do you think the authors have chosen this study design? Do you think that an alternative study design may have been more suitable? Explain why or why not.
Q3: What are potential sources of information bias in this study? Have the authors made any efforts to address these? Were they successful? What else might have been done?
Q4: What are potential sources of selection bias in this study? Have the authors made any efforts to address these? Were they successful? What else might have been done?
Q5: Using data from the paper, calculate and interpret the unadjusted Odds Ratio (and it’s 95% Confidence Interval) of stroke among those with an average intake of 5-6 drinks vs. non-
drinkers. How does it compare with the adjusted OR and why?
Q6: What are potential sources of confounding in this study? Have the authors made any efforts to address these? Were they successful? What else might have been done?
Q7: Is there evidence of effect modification in the association between alcohol intake and stroke? Have the authors explored this? If yes, how? If not, what could they have done?
Q8: Taking into account the above and any other relevant factors, have the authors given a satisfactory answer to their research question?
General Guidance:
You may wish to think about this general guidance:
This critique is not designed to be a summary of the manuscript.
Analyse the authors’ arguments, and whether they are successful in conveying their research and findings, but also think beyond what is mentioned in the manuscript. Think about how this article fits within the broader literature on the topic from a public health point of view.
Do not expand beyond 1500 words. The markers will not consider any text that is beyond the word limit.