First Four Steps of the Critique Process: A Quantitative Study
Abstract
The article “Quantitative Study of Infarcted Myocardium in Cardiogenic Shock” by Harnarayan et al. (1970) is analyzed using four steps of the critique process. From the perspective of the comprehension step, the article is concise and comprehensible, with information arranged in sections. The comparison step revealed the adequate presence of the study elements. However, ethical considerations are not addressed by the authors. In addition, the study limitations do not allow of the generalization of findings. As for the analysis step, it showed the logical connection among the elements of the study. Finally, the evaluation step demonstrated the study failure to serve as a credible source of evidence in nursing practice due to the study limitations and an outdated publication. Yet, students and educators may find the study helpful for educational and instructional purposes, while researchers may use it as an example of logical flow and clarity, or in their reviews of sources of the period when the study was published.
Keywords: critique, comprehensive, analysis, evaluation, nursing research
First Four Steps of the Critique Process: A Quantitative Study
Comprehension
The writing style of the article “Quantitative Study of Infarcted Myocardium in Cardiogenic Shock” by Harnarayan, Bennett, Pentecost, and Brewer (1970) is concise and clear. The relevant field terms are for the most part comprehensible. Major sections, such as introduction, methods, results, and discussion, are easily identifiable (Grove, Gray, & Burns 2015). Thus, clarity is a criterion of the comprehension step.
Comparison
The purpose of the study is understandable, and the need for the study is clearly stated. The study is not guided by a framework. However, it is possible to identify the way in which data were evaluated. A clear discussion of the methods of collecting and maintaining the data is provided by the authors as well (Boswell & Cannon, 2017). The literature review is not labeled as such, but the authors refer to existing research to highlight the gaps within the evidence. The research question is clearly stated, matches the purpose of the study, and is adequately justified (Boswell & Cannon, 2017). The target population was patients dying of cardiogenic shock. The subjects were included according to the strict criteria for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. The sample consisted of 4 women and 16 men among 20 patients aged 46-81 (Harnarayan et al., 1970). Ethical considerations were not addressed in the process of sampling.
For post-mortem data analysis, a point-counting method was used by counting points over myocardial slices and classifying the tissue under the points as infarcted or normal to calculate the proportion of non-infarcted to infarcted tissue (Harnarayan et al., 1970). Ethical considerations within the processes of data collection and analysis were not addressed either. The research question is answered, and limitations are explained, although they are not labeled as limitations. The findings cannot be generalized to a wider population due to the small sample. The prognostic implications and those for further research are identified (Boswell & Cannon, 2017). …
