This reflection is on the critical analysis of two journal articles which I had to complete for journal club. The journal articles I had to review were of my own choice but had to relate to the material which was covered in the Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 3 module. There was two journal club sessions, which were held on two separate weeks with the same group. The group I was involved with had four members in total in which each of us had to discuss our article and give a critical analysis of the paper. The two papers I chose were paper 1: ‘Lithium Decreases Plasma Adiponectin Levels in Bipolar Depression’ (Soeiro-de-Souza et al., 2014) and paper 2: ‘Involuntary treatment of ...view middle of the document...
Journal articles are subject to great variability in quality and in relevance. They can be subject to possible bias, errors in interpretation of data or a distortion of original source data. This makes it difficult for the reader to verify the reviews conclusions (JMLA, 2014). What I learned is that if you have a few questions in mind you can shape your critique. Some of the questions I used were as follows:
Background: What is the nature of the article and how does the author understand the situation? What is their theoretical background? Does this influence their view of the situation?
Purpose: What is its purpose? Are all the concepts stated in the text clear? What is the significance of the article? How does it connect to other materials on similar topics?
Evidence questions: Does the writers’ evidence support their argument? Is it believable? (Online, 2014; Online, 2014).
By using having these questions formed I found that by the time it came to the second paper it was easier to critique as I had this guide and had discussed my first paper.
Being involved in small groups I felt was a great way to discuss the journal articles. From week 1 to week 2 I gained more confidence and was more comfortable speaking about my article. The questions the group can ask make you look at the second paper more closely and with a sharper mind. For example when I was talking about paper 1 I was asked a question about the limitations of the study. I realised that I had not noted any limitations. When I found the limitations on the paper I recognised that they had a bearing on the results and the conclusion as they no weight information at...