In recent years, with the advancements in social media, it has become even more crucial to be critical of the incoming information. In the cases of health-related content, the well-being of not only individuals but the whole community or even the world can depend on it. The mass spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic proved this necessity in a critical approach. Scientific articles can be reliable sources of credible information. However, there is still a need for critical evaluation. Using these methods by Raff (2016) in the example of the study by Toback et al. (2013) on the influenza vaccine, it can be concluded that the source is relatively reliable and credible, but further research in the field might be necessary.
In the article, Raff (2016) provides a rough guide on how to read and evaluate scientific papers, providing the example of the study by Toback et al. (2013). The recommendations overall are useful for the non-scientist and students beginning to learn science as a starting point. For example, the shift of focus from abstract guarantees the uninformed reader to refrain from forming misguided conclusions based on the pure lack of understanding of complex terminology and concepts. However, this may not be applicable for the experienced researchers conducting the first stage of the literature overview in the field because of time constraints and different procedures. Overall, the article overall provides a good starting point for the evaluation.
Using the guide from Raff’s (2016) article, it is quite simple to critically evaluate the study by Toback et al. (2013). In the article, Toback et al. (2013) test “the safety of Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine in children 24–59 months of age” (p. 1812). Raff (2016) walks the reader through the article by Toback et al. (2013), showing the process of evaluation and possible problem areas, posing questions and leaving the assessment of the discussion part, and drawing conclusions to the audience. One of the first things Raff (2013) outlines the attention to is the authors’ affiliations. The Vaccine journal in which the study was published is relatively credible. MedImmune, a subsidiary of AstraZeneca, the company that distributes vaccines, sponsored this study. Even though the company conducting the safety and risks studies is common, it could be a potential source of conflict of interest.
Next, the overall methodology is quite satisfactory. The basics of scientific research are covered with the arguably large sample size and presence of control groups. The study follows the participants after their vaccination, recording any hospitalizations or adverse events in the form of disease or incidents. Toback et al. (2013) determined no abnormality concerning serious adverse effects and hospitalizations. However, regarding the category of all attended medical events, the children who received the vaccine in question had a significant rate of influenza infection compared to the control group. Almost all cases were caused by the H1N1 strain, which has a low vaccination rate. These findings are critical for identifying the safety levels of vaccines, but it all depends on the authors’ further calculations and conclusions.
The discussion part is discernible and predictable, with the author concluding the adequate safety of the vaccines based on serious adverse effects and hospitalization records. For the cases of the H1N1 infection, Toback et al. (2013) argue for the causative relations between the low rates of the vaccination for the H1N1 strain and the increased rate of influenza infection compared to the control group. It is quite a logical conclusion, but the lack of data is possible. This gap potentially is necessary to be filled with future research primarily focusing on the H1N1 strain to ensure complete safety because of the significance of the infection rates in this study. However, the authors do not properly outline the limitations and future research implications, which in this case would be important. Overall, the report by Toback et al. (2013) is a useful example of the usual research study, having a good methodology, limitations, and possible questionable parts.
References
Raff, J. (2016). How to read and understand a scientific paper: a guide for non-scientists. Impact of Social Sciences Blog.
Toback, S. L., Ambrose, C. S., Eaton, A., Hansen, J., Aukes, L., Lewis, N.,… & Baxter, R. (2013). A postlicensure evaluation of the safety of Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine in children 24–59 months of age. Vaccine, 31(14), 1812-1818. Web.