August 2025
By Dr. Amy Kaplan-Zattler, DACVECC, MRCVS, VETgirl’s CE Program Manager

In this VETgirl online veterinary continuing education blog, Dr. Amy Kaplan-Zattler, DACVECC, MRCVS, VETgirl’s CE Program Manager, discusses how to critically review a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. What do you need to know as a veterinary professional when it comes to evaluating medical articles accurately? Check out part 1 of this 2-part blog!

Evaluating Medical Journal Articles With Curiosity and Confidence: Part 1 of 2

When that new veterinary journal arrives in your inbox or mailbox, and you sit down for a quick skim, do you find yourself just glancing through the abstracts for anything that catches your eye? Or is that just me? With so little free time, I don’t exactly get excited about diving deep into every study to keep my brain sharp—I mean, that’s what abstracts are for, right? They give us the highlights and the authors’ conclusions on just a sliver of the front page so we don’t have to dig through the whole article. But should we be paying more attention?

It wasn’t until I became a resident that I learned how to really dissect a scientific article and uncover all the extra bonus info. After all, it’s harder than it looks! Maybe even more importantly, I realized I needed to be a bit more cautious when interpreting and clinically applying a study’s conclusions. So, here’s how I go about taking a closer, more curious look at veterinary research articles and learn how to critically interpret them.

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

1. Start with the abstract (but don’t stop there!)
The abstract is a quick summary of the study, kinda like the back page of a novel. Here you’ll find highlights on the study objectives, methods, results, and the author’s conclusions. I usually browse the abstract conclusions section to find articles that might influence the way I practice medicine, and then I settle in for a deeper read. However, don’t stop here!

2. What’s the research question?
Scientific research papers are structured with the following sections: Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD). The introduction gives us helpful background information about the subject. If the paper’s subject focuses mainly on a disease, you may find here a review of key physiology and pathology. For new procedures, you may find a summary of past research related to the subject. Reading the introduction can be great for refreshing your knowledge on the subject – especially for residents studying for boards!

The introduction ends by explaining why the study was created, formulating a hypothesis about what the authors think they will find from their study, and generally ends by stating the main purpose of the study.

Image from Pixabay.com.

3. Examine the methods
The methods section explains how the study was done and is the backbone of any scientific study. This section should include enough details that another investigator could replicate the study. In some ways, a well-written methods section is kind of like a well-written cooking recipe! There are some components commonly found in the scientific research method section:

  • References made to previously published methods mirrored in the present study
  • Mention of approval from appropriate review boards or informed consent from clients
  • Classification of study design such as retrospective, prospective, observational, etc. Just a heads-up: generally, a double-blinded, prospective study is seen as the “strongest” type of evidence, followed by retrospective studies. After that come case series and case reports, which are considered lower in strength since they’re less controlled and often involve smaller sample sizes.
  • How participants were chosen for the study (e.g., inclusion and exclusion criteria)
  • Clear definitions of groups of subjections (e.g., treatments vs. control groups)
  • Methods used to limit bias (e.g., blinded studies) and confounding factors (e.g., randomization of subjects into groups)
  • Descriptions of tools or tests used to measure outcomes and whether they were validated (e.g., pain scores, Glasgow Coma Scale, laboratory blood sample analyzers)
  • Author’s plan for analyzing the data (e.g., statistical analysis). I admit that statistical analysis is NOT my strong suit, so I really defer to the editors and authors here!

In short, if the methods aren’t solid, the results may be questionable.

4. Results: What did they actually find?
This is where things get technical. In the results section, authors share what was found, often in the form of numbers, graphs, and tables. The results section gives us a raw look at the data, giving us the opportunity to interpret the data for ourselves. Generally, this section begins with a breakdown of how many test subjects were ultimately included in the analysis and how many instead failed the study protocol. Group demographics are compared to look for any significant differences (e.g., age, breed, health) between the groups that could affect how the data is analyzed. Some things to ask yourself in this section:

  • Did enough subjects meet the study’s inclusion criteria for the results to be meaningful?
  • Do the results directly answer the research question?
  • Are the findings statistically significant? (Remember- confidence intervals and p-values tell us the likelihood the results happened by pure chance, which is why we want the lowest p-values and the smallest confidence intervals.)

This is where understanding some basic statistics comes in handy. Since there aren’t many veterinary statisticians around, it can be tough to know which tests to use to provide the most meaningful results. (For a quick look at veterinary stats from a non-statistician, check out Part 2 of this blog!)

A key point to remember here is that just because something shows statistical significance, this does not necessarily mean it will have clinical significance. For example, a drug may effectively lower heart rate by 2 beats per minute with good statistical significance, but is a patient going to really notice such a small drop in heart rate from 100 bpm to 98 bpm? Probably not.

5. Discuss and apply the findings
This section is where the authors interpret the meaning of their results. Depending on the journal, the length of this section will vary. But mainly the discussion section is where authors reflect on their study design and interpret their data. In this section we should expect to find:

  • Author’s justification for their choice in treatment design such as why they chose a specific dosage or route of administration, etc.
  • What the authors identify as limitations in their study design such as a small number of subjects/patients
  • Comparison of the study’s data to any previously published similar studies
  • Review of findings and discussion of their possible clinical implication
  • Suggestions of possible future research that could advance our knowledge and understanding of the subject

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Because this section tends to be a bit more of a subjective assessment of the study’s findings, this is where we may want to perform our own assessment of the data and see if we come up with the same conclusions. When reading between the lines, here are a few key things to look for:

  • Do the authors provide a plausible explanation for their findings?
  • Have the authors acknowledged any limitations in their study? (No study is perfect! So if there’s no limitations mentioned, this could be a red flag.)
  • Are the importance of the findings overstated? (Watch carefully for any sweeping generalizations that might not be fully supported by provided data.)
  • If something sounds a bit too overstated, go back to the results section and see if the data supports the conclusions made.

6. Skim the References
The reference section isn’t just a formality – it’s worth a quick look! References should represent a wide range of relevant, high-quality research. Are the references from peer-reviewed scientific journals or from veterinary opinion pieces? Is the most recent published information on the subject included as a reference?

7. Scan for any potential source of bias
It’s always important to consider who funded the study and whether any conflicts of interest are disclosed. Studies funded by pharmaceutical companies are not necessarily biased, but it’s good to be aware of this potential for bias. Likewise, do the authors have any financial (or other) relationships that could influence the objectivity of the study?

8. YOUR Takeaway

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

After reading an article, it’s good to summarize what you think about the information. I’ll often make a little sticky note to slap on the front page that includes the following information from my point of view:

  • If the study design was able to address the research question
  • If the author’s conclusions were supported and justified by the provided data
  • If the study conclusions will impact the way I practice medicine – why or why not

Reviewing a medical journal article can absolutely feel overwhelming at first! But trust me, the more you do it, the easier it gets to scan for and recognize key information. Remember, it’s healthy to question conclusions before changing how we practice medicine, regardless of whether the information is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data can sometimes be misinterpreted, conclusions can be overstated, or perhaps the study design wasn’t the most ideal model for exploring the study’s question. In taking this deeper dive into journal articles, we can learn to sift through the noise and focus on the valuable findings, allowing us to make more informed decisions in our own medical practices that are based on solid evidence.

Still no time? You can always listen to our VETgirl podcasts for quick clinical summaries, too. That’s why we’re here for you!

References:
1. Wenzel V, Dünser MW, Lindner KH. A step-by-step guide to writing a scientific manuscript. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University.
2. Daramola OO, Rhee JS. POLICY FORUM Rating Evidence in Medical Literature. Virtual Mentor. Am Med Assoc J of Ethics. 2011;13(1):4.

Only VETgirl members can leave comments. Sign In or Join VETgirl now!