Write a critique of a recent paper in the field of epidemiology. The critique should focus heavily on the study design, methodology, and interpretation of the results. A specific outline is provided.

Title: Your title is not the same as the title of the paper being critiqued but may include the paper’s title. Place quotation marks around article titles.

• Ex. A Critique of Makrides et al, “Effect of DHA Supplementation During Pregnancy on Maternal Depression and Neurodevelopment of Young Children: a Randomized Controlled Trial”. 
• Introduction (~300 words)
  • Provide a clear introduction to the topic. In your own words, describe the issue being investigated and its importance. This section should include citations from relevant literature or statistics.
  • Specify which paper is being critiqued.
  • Provide a brief summary of the paper that is being critiqued, such as primary objective or hypothesis of the study and primary findings.
• Study design (~800 words)
  • Overview:
    • Briefly describe the type of study design (RCT, case-control, cohort, or cross-sectional).
    • Evaluate the strengths and limitations of this study design for the stated objective of the study. In other words, was this an appropriate type of study to answer the research question?
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria:
    • Describe the study population and recruitment methods.
    • How many people were included?
    • How generalizable is this population? Does the study have a representative sample? To whom do you think that these results are generalizeable?
  • Validity of the exposure and outcome assessments
    • Describe the methods of data collection on the exposure and the outcome.
    • Provide a critique of these methods—how valid do you consider the methods to be? Are there any limitations of these methods (ex. Self-report data might be susceptible to bias or error in recall)?
  • Confounding and risk of bias
    • For randomized controlled trials, how comparable were the baseline characteristics between the randomized groups? For cohort studies, how comparable were the exposure groups at baseline? For case control studies, how comparable were the case and control groups?
    • Describe all factors that the authors considered as potential confounders.
    • How did the authors collect data on the confounders? How did they control for confounding in their analysis?
    • List at least one potential confounder that the authors did not consider. Describe how this factor might be associated with the exposure and associated with the disease outcome.
    • Consider all of the potential sources of bias for this type of study. Did the authors address these potential sources of bias? Interpret how serious you think that these sources of bias might be on the observed relationship.
    • Describe how serious you think the bias is in the study (not serious, serious, or very serious).
• Results (~250 words)
  • Briefly describe the primary results. Describe the magnitude of the relationship and state whether the findings are statistically significant.
  • In your opinion, are the results clearly presented? Explain your answer. Do the results directly address the stated study objective?
• Criteria for deriving causal inference (~750 words) Consider each of the criteria described in class and discuss how well the authors addressed each one:
  • Consistency of results: Did the authors compare their study results with other existing studies? If the study results are inconsistent with previous studies, did the author explain why?
  • Strength of the association: How large is the association between the exposure and the outcome. Stronger associations provide stronger evidence of causality.
  • Biologic plausibility: Did the authors present any description of potential biologic mechanisms that may explain the observed relationship?
  • Dose-response gradient: Did the authors present any evidence that there may be a dose-response relationship?
  • Temporality: Did the measurement of the exposure occur before the measurement of the outcome?
  • Alternative explanations: How well did the authors address concerns about confounding or bias in the study? Are there other factors that they did not address that could explain the observed relationship?
• Importance of the results (a paragraph)
  • Is the outcome important? Are the authors answering an important question? What is the clinical or public health significance of the findings?
• Conclusion (a paragraph)
  • Summary of your paper critique. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the evidence presented in this paper?