Critical Appraisal of Review Articles

Running head: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
Name of the Student:
Name of the university:
Author note:

1CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
Article 1:
Paper for appraisal and reference: “Huynh, L. T., Rankin, J. M., Tideman, P., Brieger, D. B.,
Erickson, M., Markwick, A. J., ... & Chew, D. P. (2010). Reperfusion therapy in the acute
management of ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction in Australia: findings from the
ACACIA registry. Medical Journal of Australia, 193(9), 496-501”.
Section A: Are the results of the study valid?
1. Did the study address a
clearly Yes

Focused issue? Can’t Tell
No
Yes, the study has clearly addressed the focused issue of detecting the beneficial effect of reperfusion therapy for the
management of myocardial infraction in Australia. This study also focused on the outcome evaluated on the
management of ST-segment-elevation (STEM).
2. Was the cohort recruited
in Yes

an acceptable way?
Can’t Tell


No

Yes, cohort was conducted in an acceptable way. The patients with STEMI in Australia were considered for
this study. 70% of the patients were given with reperfusion therapy, rest were given with timely reperfusion
therapy, and accordingly cohort study was conducted to analyse the result.
Is it worth continuing?

2CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
3. Was the exposure accurately Yes
measured to minimise bias?
Can’t Tell
No
Can’t tell if there was any exposure accuracy to minimise the measurement bias. In this study, no effective
validation tool was used to completely validate the objective measurements and the subjects were classified
under two different exposure groups.
4. Was the outcome accurately Yes
Measured to minimise bias?
Can’t Tell
No
No effective validation tool was used to check for the accuracy. In this study, Acute Coronary Syndrome
Prospective Audit (ACACIA) were involved in recording the outcomes established from the patient.



3CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
5. (a) Have the authors
identified Yes 
all important confounding
factors? Can’t Tell
No
Yes, the authors have identified all the important factors such as inclusion of patient with STEMI, advantage of using
reperfusion therapy for acute management, factors included in reperfusion therapy and change in mortality factor due to the
therapy.
5.(b) Have they taken
account of the
confounding factors in
the design and/or
analysis?

4CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
Yes

Can’t
Tell
No
The researcher did consider the entire confounding factor necessary for the analysis of the study in order to estimate the necessary changes
in mortality rate and to determine the effect of reperfusion therapy in treatment of myocardial infraction.
6. (a) Was the follow up of Yes
subjects complete
enough?
Can’t
Tell
No 
6. (b) Was the follow up of Yes
subjects long enough? Can’t
Tell
No 

5CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF REVIEW ARTICLES
In this study, only a observational design of approach was
considered with the aim to just confirm the robustness of already
used treatment effect. A more extensive study should have been
considered with improved data infrastructure in order to match the
clinical infrastructure
Section B: What are the results?
7. What are the results of this study?
The result stated that timely reperfusion therapy was
beneficial in reducing the mortality rate of the patient
suffering with myocardial infraction. The benefit of using
early reperfusion therapy was highlighted in the result stating
that no crucial difference in mortality rate was estimated in
the rural and metropolitan patients of Australia.
8.How precise are the results?
The result was precise in stating the advantages of reperfusion therapy for the
patients suffering with myocardial infraction but the outcome of the individuals
involved in this observational study was not mentioned precisely with no description
of the effect of treatment in those patients.