Maya Angelou Research Center on Minority Health
Journal Club Guidelines
There are different types of Journal Clubs, depending on the aims of the organization sponsoring it and the persons attending them. A common reason for establishing journal clubs is for the participants to maintain exposure to the current medical literature, and an implicit objective is to acquire new information which can be applied to their patients. Other journal clubs target primarily academics within a given discipline, particularly graduate students and faculty, and the aims are to expose students to a variety of research methodologies as well as to become familiar with the current state of their field of interest. Given the Center’s diverse membership and interests, our journal club aims to highlight research which either potentially impacts on minority health from a clinical perspective or has implications for minority health research. Another aim is to provide students, residents, fellows, and faculty opportunities to enhance their comfort and skills in critiquing research articles or presentations.
In general, a journal review has the following format: A brief introduction of the topic and the paper (why did they write this paper?) and the main results (reviewing the abstract is sufficient). The next step is for the discussant to critically appraise the paper. This includes a review of the methodology and analytical approach, a more thorough presentation of the results, and an overview of the AUTHORS conclusions. The general questions one wishes to answer are listed on the following page. However for specific types of articles (e.g. randomized trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses) and research questions there are guidelines for how to perform a review consistent with Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) principles. For those who are not familiar with EBM, please see this website: http://www.cche.net/usersguides/main.asp. Finally, the group discusses the paper in detail, and determines if/how they will utilize the results in their future clinical or research endeavors.
Journal Club sessions should be interactive, not a lecture by the person participating. Typically, after the brief introduction (no more than 5 minutes) the rest of the session is open to participation by all who are attending. Ideally participants have read the article before they have come to journal club, however the initial 5 minute intro should allow for sufficient time for those who have not read the paper to become familiar with the material by reading the abstract and looking at the tables and figures.
Articles selected for presentation at the MARMCH should have a focus on the health of minorities (for example an article discussing new treatment or research in Sickle Cell Disease), health disparities (differential disease burden or risk by race/ethnicity), or health care disparities (differential treatment by race/ethnicity). Papers may either be assessing the presence of health/health care disparities or intervening to reduce/eliminate health disparities. We may also occasionally use Journal Club time to have “Research in Progress” presentations by affiliates or students. Finally, affiliated faculty, staff, and students are encouraged to participate in discussions and by presenting articles. If the presenter is not familiar with Journal Club format, or the suitability of an article they wish to present please contact Dr. Alain Bertoni (abertoni@wfubmc.edu) before agreeing to lead a session.
I. Summary
- Original Citation (include who did the study, and where was it done)
- Overall Study Question(with brief background if necessary)
- The methods used to answer the question (What was done to the subjects)
- A summary of the major results as reported by the author(s).
- The conclusions drawn and the implications made by the author(s).
II. Critique- Evaluation
1. Review the strengths and the limitations of the study. Items to consider include:
- Appropriate design to answer the study question?
- Appropriate selection of participants?
- Research methodology sound?
2. Are there other factors that make the results unreliable?
- Consideration of potential biases/ confounders which may affect results
- Setting of the study or participants limits external validity
3. Authors conclusions- justified based on the data?
III. Presenters and Journal Club Members Discussion
1. Does the group have the same conclusions as the authors? Different conclusions?
2. Should the results change the way patients are cared for or the direction of future research? This is the “so what” question.