Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

論文を批判的に読むときのチェックリスト

Avatar for KRSK KRSK
July 14, 2023

 論文を批判的に読むときのチェックリスト

主に医学・疫学・社会科学系の論文を読むときに、こんなことに注目しながら査読やknowledge gap探し(先行研究の弱点を見つけること)をしていますというリストです

Avatar for KRSK

KRSK

July 14, 2023
Tweet

More Decks by KRSK

Other Decks in Science

Transcript

  1. 1. Question: • Is the research novel? • Is it

    important to public health and addressing health disparities? • Do the study’s methods provide an answer to this? • Watch out for any disconnection between methods and questions: this is surprisingly common. 2. Sampling: • Consider who’s included and who’s excluded (i.e., "who’s on the map and who’s off the map"). • Consider the implications on the target population and health disparities. • Look for selection bias. 3. Measurement: • Assess the concordance between the research question/hypothesis and what’s measured. • Check the validity and accuracy of measurements. 4. Causal Estimand: • Is the study estimating ATE (Average Treatment Effect), CATE (Conditional Average Treatment Effect), LATE (Local Average Treatment Effect) or else? • What is the hypothetical intervention being considered? • Cumulative treatment vs incident treatment • Time-fixed vs time-varying • Are these choices explicit? Does the Discussion acknowledge the choice? • Any disconnection between the estimand and the discussion/interpretation? 5. Identification: • What are the assumptions? Are they plausible and explicitly acknowledged? • Confounding • measurement errors and residual confounding • unobserved confounders 1. Is the bias big conditional on adjusted covariates? • Selection bias • Attrition (before or after the exposure?) • How is missing data handled? • (Differential) measurement errors • Check for ambiguous “time zero”. 6. Estimation: • Watch for potential misspecification, such as non-linearity. 7. Interpretation: • Look for evidence of confounding in Table 1. • Look for evidence of selection bias. • Watch for authors misinterpreting their results. • Treating the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. • Making a false dichotomy of p-values. • Generalizing results too much without considering causal estimand and potential effect heterogeneity. • Consider potential mechanisms/policy implications. • Consider implications on health disparities.