Assignment:
Please refer to the article critique outline below. Write a short summary addressing the points in the article critique outline. This summary can be as simple as a numbered list thoroughly addressing each question in the article critique outline.
1) Zhang et al. "Early childhood lead exposure and academic achievement: evidence from Detroit Public Schools, 2008-2010." AJPH 2013;103:e72-e77.
Example of logistic regression for adjusted analysis.
Critique outline (adapted from an outline originally developed by Richard Monson of Harvard School of Public Health):
A. Collection of data
1. What was the context of the study?
2. What were the objectives of the study?
3. What was the primary exposure of interest? Was this accurately measured?
4. What was the primary outcome of interest? Was this accurately measured?
5. What type of study was conducted?
6. Describe the source of the study population, process of subject selec¬tion, sample size, and ratio of propositi to comparison subjects. (Propositi are exposed subjects in an experimental or cohort study and cases in a case-control study.)
7. Could there have been bias in the selection of the study subjects? How likely was this bias?
8. Could there have been bias in the collection of information? How likely was this bias?
9. What provisions were made to minimize the influence of confounding factors prior to the analysis of the data? Were these provisions sufficient?
B. Analysis of data
1. What methods were used to control confounding bias during data analysis? Were these methods sufficient?
2. What measures of association were reported in this study?
3. What measures of statistical stability were reported in this study?
C. Interpretation of data
1. What were the major results of this study?
2. How is the interpretation of these results affected by information bias, selection bias, and confounding? Discuss both the direction and magnitude of any bias.
3. How is the interpretation of these results affected by nondifferential misclassification? Discuss both the direction and magnitude of this misclassification.
4. Did the discussion section adequately address the limitations of the study?
5. What were the authors' main conclusions? Were they justified by the findings?
6. To what larger population can the results of this study be generalized?
Source: Adapted from Monson RR. Occupational Epidemiology. 2nd ed, p 94. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1990.