True or false?

1. True or false? Using internet information criticallyReadingpapers Presentingpapers

2. Web information: garbage and quality

3. Basic questions to a web page • Clear who wrote it? • Clear aims of site? • Does site achieve it’s aims? • Is site relevant to me? • Can info be checked? • When was site produced? • Any site is biased – how is this site biased? • Does site present you with choices opne to you?

4. 3 Full documents on your stick: • ”Evaluating web pages tecniques….” • ”Evaluating information found on the internet….” • ”How to evaluate the credibility of a source”

5. How to Read a paper • Why to Read Scientific Papers? • The Content: • I need the most efficient algorithm or new techniques for my product • The Topic: • Can I get a new product out of these crazy scientists work? • The Authors: • Who are the valuable persons to hire or collaborate with?

6. Motivation…. • It is cryptic • (notations, math formulas, references to other papers, . . . ) • It is hidden • (where to find good papers?) • It is complex • (theorems, lemmas, proofs, experiments, . . . )

7. Taxonomy of Scientific Papers

8. Taxonomy of Scientific Papers

9. Taxonomy of Scientific Papers

11. Why are papers rejected? • Whywerepapersrejected for publication? • The study did not address an importantscientificissue • The studywas not original (someoneelse had already done the same or a similarstudy) • The study did not actually test the authors' hypothesis • A different type of studyshould have been done • Practicaldifficulties (in recruitingsubjects, for example) led the authors to compromiseon the original studyprotocol • The sample sizewastoo small • The studywasuncontrolledorinadequatelycontrolled • The statisticalanalysiswasincorrectorinappropriate • The authorsdrewunjustifiedconclusions from their data • There is a significantconflict of interest (one of the authors, or a sponsor, mightbenefitfinancially from the publication of the paper and insufficient safeguardswereseen to be in place to guardagainst bias) • The paper is so badlywrittenthat it is incomprehensible

12. Is this what I need? • Manypaperspublished have potentiallyseriousmethodologicalflaws • Whendecidingwhether a paper is valid and relevant to you, firstestablishwhatspecificquestion it addressed • Questions to do with drug treatmentorothermedical interventions shouldbeaddressed by double blind, randomisedcontrolledtrials • Questionsaboutprognosisrequirelongitudinalcohort studies, and thoseaboutcausationrequireeithercohortorcase-control studies • Case reports, thoughmethodologicallyweak, canbeproducedrapidly and have a place in alert policy makers imminent security/health/otherthreats

13. Methodological quality • The first essential question to ask about the methods section of a published paper is: was the study original? • The second is: whom is the study about? • Thirdly, was the design of the study sensible? • Fourthly, was systematic bias avoided or minimised? • Finally, was the study large enough, and continued for long enough, to make the results credible?

14. Bias • 1) Howweresubjectsselected for investigation, and howrepresentativewerethey of the target population withregard to the studyquestion? • (2) Whatwas the response rate, and mightresponders and nonresponders have differed in importantways? As with the choice of the study sample, it mattersonlyif respondents areatypical in relation to the studyquestion. • (3) Howaccuratelywereexposure and outcome variables measured?

15. Summary: how to read a paper • What is the research question? • Is it relevant/new – basedonexistingknowledge/speculative? • Is it an overall clear paper • Is the methodologycorrect • Is the sample size/timeframecorrect? • Do theyanswer the question? • Do theyinterprettheirresultscorrectly? • Bias? • Strengths/weaknesses • Perspectives • WHAT DO YOU THINK?

17. Summary: how to read a paper • What is the research question? • Is it relevant/new – basedonexistingknowledge/speculative? • Is it an overall clear paper • Is the methodologycorrect • Is the sample size/timeframecorrect? • Do theyanswer the question? • Do theyinterprettheirresultscorrectly? • Bias suffucientlydiscussed? • Strengths/weaknesses • Perspectives – whatwouldbe potential consequences • WHAT DO YOU THINK?

18. After the tea break • Read the paper • 25 minutes • Then you will get a new assigment!

19. 4 groups • 1. Title and Background/introduction • Does the title inspire? Is it catching? Too complicated? • Clear? Relevant? • Conclusion of introduction? • Does the introduction/background cover what is presented in the results section?

20. 2. Methods • Which method? Appropriate? Alternative methods? What is lacking? • Have they enough study participants? • Is it the right study participants? • Are there any drop outs that are not mentioned • Could you repeat the study based on the methods section of the paper?

21. 3. Results • How are results reported? Relevant format? Clear format? Logical sequence in presentation? Anything missing? • Are there any drop outs that are not mentioned • Does the analysis lead up to an answer? Do the results cover what is promised in the introduction/background? Do the presented analyses lead up to the discussion?

22. 4. Discussion/conclusion • Is the line of thoughts from the introductioncontinued in thissection? Do theyopenlydiscuss bias (Other factors thatcouldexplaintheirfinding)? • Do theyargue in a clear way so thatyoucanfollowtheirlogic? • Aretherecompetingways of interpretingtheirfindings? • Arethey right in theirconclusion? • Whatwouldyou have concluded from the discussion/results? • Is thisreally a new findingthatmoves science forward? • Whatare the implications of the study (new research, interventions etc.?)