Abstract

Critical analysis of biomedical literature is process that helps readers discover potential errors in the results of clinical trials either from bias or confusion. Critical analysis also considers the potential of random error, correct interpretation of study results, and the possibility of applying the results on a given set of patients. However, there is no dichotomy between “valid” and “non valid” results. On the one hand, there are very good studies that rigorously comply with the strictest standards of internal validity. On the other hand, there are studies with severe methodological shortcomings that render them lacking in scientific value. What conditions must a good critical analysis fulfill? It must begin by correctly identifying the problem and the study design. Instead of being conducted mechanically it should be done thoughtfully, taking into consideration any possible source of bias. And lastly, if the study does not comply with all criteria, there may be a perfectly good reason. The article finishes by over viewing the concepts of internal and external validity.