Contents
This paper answers the below questions ased on the critique of the article - - Dietary Carbohydrate Intake, Glycemic Index, and Glycemic Load and Endometrial Cancer Risk: A Prospective Cohort Study
- 1. What is the hypothesis (research question) of this study (there may be >1). Is the hypothesis too specific or too general?
- 2. What is the study design and does it seem appropriate given the research hypothesis? 3. Specify the outcome of interest. How was it ascertained?
- 4. Who is the study population? What are some of the characteristics of this population that may be important given the exposure and outcome of interest?
- 5. How were participants selected? Is there potential for selection bias? 6. What exclusion criteria were applied for this analysis?
- 7. How were the dietary data collected (what instrument and method, when, by whom)? Is there potential for bias in the collection of the diet data?
- 8. What methods were used to assess implausible dietary data? What, if any, methods were used to assure quality of the dietary data?
- 9. Was the dietary data energy-adjusted and if so, by what method?
- 10. How was the dietary data structured for analysis (continuous, categories, with/without dietary supplements)? Did you agree with the way the authors conducted their dietary analyses?
- 11. Is there potential for misclassification of the exposure and if so explain. In which direction would this bias affect the measure of association?
- 12. What is the sample size? Is the statistical power of the study identified – if so explain? 13. What confounders were adjusted for? Could there still be residual confounding – how?
- 14. Were effect modifiers considered? Were results presented for subgroups and if so how were subgroup analyses justified?
- 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
- What are the major findings of the research (in a couple of sentences)? Are the results internally coherent – why/why not?
- Are the results biologically plausible – why/why not? What are the strengths and limitations of the research?
- Are the results generalizable and if so to whom?
- Are the interpretations and conclusions conservative – why/why not? Do the authors suggest avenues for future research - what?
- 22. Does this study add to the existing scientific literature in a meaningful way - explain?
Description
N/A
