Table 5.
| Section | Items to be checked |
|---|---|
| Title | Whether appropriate, clear, concise and precise. All essential components (population, intervention, control, and outcome i.e., PICO) are mentioned (may vary with the type of the study).Related to the topic/content of the paper and does not (usually) reveal the result. |
| Abstract | Concise and follows guidelines to authors stated by the journal. Usually structured- Background/introduction, aims, methods, results, conclusions (or similar subsections). Whether it is independent, complete and stand-alone (i.e., give a fair idea of the contents of the paper without reading the complete manuscript). Reflects the content of the article accurately (especially after a revision). Is it consistent with the content of the main text? Word limit stated by the journal is adhered to (usually about 250 words). Keywords from MeSH terms (Pubmed website) are correctly mentioned at the end of the abstract |
| Introduction | Gives the rationale in brief. Gives adequate background information and context. Gives only the relevant literature and few (four to eight) appropriate references. Is the research question important? Whether the objectives and purpose of the study are clearly stated. |
| Materials and Methods | Whether ethical clearance and informed consent/assent have been mentioned. Appropriate sampling procedures have been used. Whether the study participant selection (and description ), study design, randomization, blinding, data collection procedures and instruments, precise details of interventions, study treatments/procedures, study endpoints, and primary/secondary outcomes have been stated. Is the sample size adequate to provide the necessary statistical power to the study (minimize type II error)? Statistical test(s) are described and appropriate. Are trade names and symbols used properly? If diagnostic kits or statistical packages or questionnaires are used- whether details like owner/producer/trademark-/patent-/copyright-holder stated, and whether the city, year and permission to use is stated. |
| Results | Whether well presented, clear, precise, and concise. All points raised in the methods are answered and results for all endpoints are stated in a logical sequence. Whether actual P values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Whether the tables, figures, graphs, charts, and photographs are used appropriately and improve the readability of the manuscript. Have appropriate legends been given for these? Whether some tables can be simplified, condensed, or omitted. Whether appropriate units are used to describe the data. Whether the results are reported in relation to the specified aims and objectives. Whether the statistical analysis is adequate and appropriate. If supplementary files/materials are supplied, these also need to be reviewed by the reviewer. |
| Discussion | Whether it summarizes findings and explains the meaning of the main result. Emphasizes the new and important aspects of the study. Is in relation to the objectives/hypothesis. Answers “how” and “why” of the manuscript. Whether the literature search is adequate, and comparison is appropriately done. Whether the interpretation of results has been given. Is the result clinically important? Whether the main conclusion/s are explained and supported by the results. Whether it explores plausible explanation/s for conflicting results. Whether generalizability of results has been stated. Practical implications, strengths of the study as well as the limitations and biases have been discussed. Directions for future research have been stated. Whether the conclusion is rational and take-home/key message has been given. |
| References | Vancouver style or as per journal instructions/requirement. Whether most of the references are recent (from the past 5-10 years). Whether the number of references is within the maximum limit prescribed by the journal. Whether the references are cited correctly in the text. |
| Miscellaneous | Whether the paper contributes something new to the existing knowledge (novelty). Whether the paper gives clear and concise information. Whether the paper follows a logical sequence and avoids repetitions. The writing style is appropriate as per the journal’s instructions to authors. Correct use of English grammar and spellings. |
| Originality | To be rated (Good/Fair or Adequate/Poor). |
| Clinical relevance | To be rated (Good/Fair or Adequate/Poor). |
| Appropriateness for the readership of the journal | To be rated (Good/Fair or Adequate/Poor). |