PHA 599: Critical Care APPE Journal Club Guidelines

 

 

Preparation

Students shall provide a copy of the article to all participants by the date indicated in their clerkship calendar. The article must fall under the following criteria:

 

·         Topic that pertains to critical care pharmacotherapy or the relationship of drug therapy to the care of the critically ill, or a topic of recent interest to the practice of clinical pharmacy (must have been published within the last six months).

·         Clinical trial published in a peer-reviewed journal (no newsletter articles, review articles, editorials, case reports, etc.)

·         Topic should have possible implications for patient care or the practice of pharmacy.

 

Presentations are to be approximately 30 minutes in length. A grade reduction will be incurred for failure to adhere to time limits. In addition the student will provide a handout for all participants, which should be no more than one double-sided page (Times New Roman or Arial 12-point font). 


Article Evaluation/Presentation

I.       The journal

Discuss the general aspects of the journal

A.    Peer reviewed?

B.     Affiliated with a professional organization or society?

C.     Is it primarily academic or are there articles, sections and content such as advertisements that would lead you to question its reputation

II.    The article

Discuss the general aspects of the article

A.    General comments

1.      Author expertise and qualifications

a)      Previous publications

b)      Experience with topic

2.      Statistician used

3.      Was any financial support provided

a)      Independent

b)      Industry

c)      Grants

4.      Other conflicts of interest

B.     Title

1.      Descriptive?

2.      Reflects objectives?

3.      Does it imply unsubstantiated conclusions

C.     Abstract

1.      Accurate and concise

2.      Does it summarize the major findings of the study

3.      Objectives, methods, results, conclusions – not just favorable findings

D.    Introduction

1.      Study rationale

a)      Logical

b)      Sufficient detail on study background

2.      Purpose

a)      Clear

b)      Unbiased

3.      Objectives

a)      Well-defined

b)      Measurable

c)      Logical

E.     Methods

Discuss the study methods, step-by-step (as written in the article)

1.      Logical?

2.      Sufficient detail, or are you left guessing

3.      Contemporary or outdated methods?

4.      References to standard methods?

5.      Description of modified methods, if applicable

6.      Patient selection methods

a)      Inclusion and exclusion criteria – logical, all-inclusive

b)      Bias and methods to control bias?

7.      Study design

a)      Supports objectives

b)      Study location – single center vs. multicenter

c)      Appropriate controls used

(1)   Placebo

(2)   Gold-standard treatment

(3)   Patient as own control

d)     Blinding:  single vs double

e)      Randomization procedure used

f)       Washout, if necessary

g)      Appropriate doses and duration of therapy

h)      Sufficient follow-up

i)        Adherence assessment (e.g., pill counts, diaries, blood levels)

j)        Methods to assess adverse reactions

k)      Was the study ethical (IRB approved?)

l)        What were the study endpoints

F.      Statistical Tests

1.      What was the sample size

a)      How was it determined

b)      What change or difference (%) were the authors looking for

2.      What was the study power

3.      What statistical tests were used and were they appropriate?

G.    Results

1.      Review the patient demographics

a)      Are the groups matched

b)      If not what are the discrepancies

2.      Did they enroll the desired types of patients according to inclusion/exclusion criteria

3.      Are the patients representative of the population you may be treating

4.      Patient withdrawal description

a)      Adverse effect on sample size?

b)      Intention to treat?

5.      Describe all results listed

a)      Are all the study measurements reported

b)      Logical, unbiased interpretations?

c)      Do results in text match with results in tables/graphs

6.      Did they present any adverse reactions

H.    Discussion

1.      Were the objectives met; and if not, why

2.      Are the results put in perspective to available information

3.      References to unpublished work

4.      References to authors’ own work

5.      Is there any speculation; adequate data interpretation

6.      Conclusions supported by data

7.      Do the authors try to extrapolate results to other populations?

8.      Are study limitations discussed

I.       Conclusions

1.      Authors’ feelings about application of results

2.      Plans or need for further study

J.       References

1.      Key articles referenced

2.      Overzealous references to authors’ publications

3.      Primary vs. tertiary literature

III. Applications

A.    Impact on practice and the patients you treat

B.     Clinical vs. statistical significance