Write a critique of a research article, Doneness Preferences, Meat and Meat-der
Write a critique of a research article, Doneness Preferences, Meat and Meat-derived Heterocyclic Amines Intake, and NAT2 Polymorphisms: Association with Colorectal Adenoma in Japanese Brazilians by Budhathoki S. et al., Eur J Cancer Prev 2020. The written critique should be formatted with 1-inch margins, the font size should be 12 points, and it should be no longer than seven (7) pages, double-spaced. This short length will require you to write succinctly. Thus, be sure to omit any general statements or unnecessary details. For example, you should not include a definition of what confounding is. Instead, you should discuss specifically what the authors did to prevent or control for confounding. The critique should highlight your thoughts about the paper, influenced by what you have learned throughout this course. It should follow the outline below; these specific questions will help guide your critique. Regarding grading, we should see that you considered all the questions listed below and included each of the four parts within your critique. The highest grades will be achieved by those who address all 19 questions and have something worthwhile to say about the paper that the authors themselves did not discuss. Please make sure to read the Supplemental Tables. Here is the outline for your critique: Part 1. Background (no more than a few sentences) 1. What was known about this topic before the study began? (1 point) 2. What was the studys main research question, and why is it important? (1 point) Part 2. Methods 3. What was the study design? (1 point) 4. What was the sample size, and how were the subjects recruited? (1 point) 5. What was/were the exposure(s), and what was/were the main outcome(s)? (1 point) 6. How did researchers ascertain and classify the exposure(s)? (1 point) 7. Describe briefly how the study was conducted (make sure to include the length of the study) (1 point) 8. What measure(s) of association was/were used? (1 point) 9. What steps were taken for the protection of human subjects? (1 point) Part 3. Bias and confounding 10. Please discuss in detail how the authors addressed selection bias (2 points) 11. Please discuss in detail how the authors addressed information/observation bias (e.g., recall, interviewer, misclassification) (2 points) 12. What type of bias are you most concerned about, and why? (1 point) 13. Please discuss in detail how the authors addressed confounding during both the design and analysis phases of the study (2 points) Part 4. Interpretation 14. What were the main results and conclusions? (1 point) 15. Were the authors interpretations of their results appropriate? (1 point) 16. Do the results have meaning in other populations (external validity, also known as generalizability)? (1 point) 17. Do the results of this study strengthen a proposed causal relationship between the exposure/s and outcome/s? Why or why not? (Please make sure to discuss all the causality criteria that this paper addresses). (2 points) 18. Were there any other strengths and limitations of this study that you have not mentioned so far? (2 points) 19. Was the design of this study appropriate to answer the given research question? What might be (if any) the immediate and long-term effects of the findings of this study? What future studies should be conducted to continue the work described in this study? (2 points) Total: 25 points
