Allocated title: Title 3: Participation in community-based lung cancer screening

Allocated title: Title 3: Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (RCT)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35777775/
The critical appraisal should be typed and include diagrams and tables as appropriate.
· File size should be no more than 20Mb.
· The critical appraisal should be submitted on QMPlus in MS Word or pdf formatThe critical appraisal should be typed and include diagrams and tables as appropriate.
Guidelines
– The 2000-words (+/- 10%) critical appraisal of a research paper.
– The word count excludes the cover page, figure legends; tables; and the bibliography (references).
– The word count includes the lay abstract, which shall NOT include any references.
– There is no limit on the number of references that you can use but they should be relevant and appropriate to the individual research paper that you have been assigned.
– The cover (first) page must include the title of the research paper you have been assigned and its pubmed ID, the word count and your 4-digit candidate number.
What is requiredWhat is required
On cover page
– Title of paper you have been assigned
– 4-digit candidate number. DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR FULL NAME ANYWHERE ON YOUR WORK OR FILENAME.
– Word count: 2000 maximum – (+/- 10%)
At end of critical appraisal
– References / bibliography
– References in text and in the bibliography should be in Harvard style.
– Do not use footnotes
Tips for writing the critical appraisal
– The critical appraisal will be graded on the basis of these criteria:
Lay summary of the paper (15%)
Appraisal of the study using the relevant framework checklist (50%)
Relevance, future work, and current wider literature context (20%)
Format (10%)
Referencing (5%)
I have attached the marking rubric, the article, and the checklist to follow for the critical appraisal, as well the guidelines of an example of critical appraisal the university gave us. Attached are also the lecture slides for the lecture on RCT’s.
– Using your checklist to help you write your critical appraisal. It should form the basis for your critical appraisal, but we want the appraisal written in prose and complete sentences. You will need to explain to the reader what you have understood about the paper and its significance to medical practice or understanding of the underlying science of diseases.
– Write the lay summary of the paper (i.e. write a lay summary of the paper, what it is about, its results and conclusion all in lay language that would be understandable to a lay audience).
– Make sure you cite and reference your sources appropriately and be aware of the rules around plagiarism, monitored via Turnitin.
– I need at list 2 drafts of the critical appraisal, one by Friday, and one by Saturday evening.
– I need to have a full Turnitin plagiarism report.
– I need to communicate with you on a daily basis to tell you what to include/remove/change in the critical appraisal.
– The critical appraisal MUST be written in British (UK) English. ONLY EXPERT WRITERS, WHO KNOW HOW TO WRITE A CRITICAL APPRAISAL ON AN RCT (medicine).
– I need to score highly.
– Describe ethics, any conflicts of interest, confidence intervals and odds ratios as relevant in the critical appraisal.
– No p values or discussions in the lay abstract.
– See if there is anything to criticise in the methods of the study, sample size etc.
– Do not include any suggestions as in how the paper can be fixed.
– are there any significant p values?
– are there any biases?
– Cite something else they cite (in the references of the study) – say for example, “this paper says something else actually” and explain that. Critically appraise it.
– use subtitles/subsections in the critical appraisal. Do not include long subtitles. Subtitles are counted towards the overall word count. They need to be short.
– Include images (not too many though). Include images from the study and critically appraise them, and reference them accordingly and in the right way.
– are there any power ratios in the study? Comment on power ratios – does not follow convention (not easy for the reader).