Language study.

Useful language for a critical article review
Introduction	In this paper /In this review, we will discuss X’s article ‘On the University’ (give reference). /This review discusses The theme of this well researched and powerfully argued article is … /X’s article is about … (say what it is about). In particular, he argues that (give a list of the main points). After summarizing X’s main points, we shall be claiming that (give a general overview of your main criticisms—don’t give any details here). In concluding, we shall show that (give a quick outline of your conclusion about the subject.)
Body	The research found that…In addition, / also … The researcher(s) looked at / found how …According to X… The article focuses on… A bad thing about this research is…, another problem is… The results might not be the same for / cannot be applied to… There was no …, making it impossible to conclude that / so we can’t know how (when, where…)
Conclusion	In this review we have discussed X’s article ‘On the University’. X’s article covers several points (give list). We have argued that while he is right that (give examples of where you agree with him), this does not mean that (give your criticisms). Further development and discussion of this issue especially in the area of (give details) is needed to advance research on these matters.

 

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/90363/Txt_critical_reviews.pdf

1) Read an example of critical review (given below) to the abstract “Thrombolytic therapy in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: saves lives but underused.”, which you’ve read earlier and in pairs:

A) Decide on the best order for the extracts in the critical review. Which extract (A, B or C) is…?

1) introduction

2) body

3) conclusion

B) Does the critical review satisfy all the requirements concerning the necessary structure, language, etc.? Give your reasons.

C) Replace the underlined words and phrases in the text with those given in brackets.

 

One problem with the research is…, furthermore, the result of the research was…, the researchers looked at…, nevertheless, in addition

 

A Critical Review of Stein PD, Matta F., Thrombolytic therapy in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: saves lives but underused. Am J Med. 2012 May; 125(5):465-70.

A) In this review we have discussed Stein PD, Matta F.’ work “Thrombolytic therapy in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: saves lives but underused”. We have argued that while the authors are right that using thrombolytics in patients with hemodynamically significant pulmonary embolism is beneficial, the low quality of this study design does not add much to what we already think we know. Also, it has to be admitted that the current study is still far from being conclusive. Further studies must be undertaken, better measures must be developed, and larger samples must be used to better define the optimal management of life-threatening pulmonary embolism.

B) Stein PD, Matta F. conducted a study on the influence of thrombolytic therapy on unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism. This research aimed to test the hypothesis that thrombolytic therapy reduces case fatality rate in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

The study contains a sample size of >72,000 patients, and a huge protective effect for thrombolytic therapy, reducing mortality from 47 to 15% (p<0.0001). The result agreed with the prediction since the research found that thrombolytic therapy in combination with a vena cava filter in unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism resulted in a lower case fatality rate. However, this study is based on very low quality data.

C) The study raised an urgent problem as there is no definitive clinical trial that proves the benefit of thrombolytic therapy for life-threatening pulmonary embolism.

A bad thing about this research is that the clinical diagnoses of pulmonary embolism and hemodynamic instability and the administration of thrombolytic therapy were all based on ICD-9-CM billing codes - notoriously inaccurate for use in clinical research. Another problem is that the study design was a retrospective cohort - but there was a high risk of selection bias - patients who did not receive thrombolytic therapy were significantly older and sicker to begin with. The authors made no attempt to adjust for this as they should have, with statistical techniques such as multiple logistic regression.