You will select one of the following study designs (scientific peer-reviewed articles) for review – experimental, cohort, or case-control. Once you have received approval for your selected article, you may begin with this assignment.
On page 369 (Chapter 14) of your textbook, you will find an outline for critiquing epidemiological studies. There are several example critiques in the chapter. Please use those as a guideline for how sections are scientifically worded.
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction: The critique of an epidemiological study is a crucial aspect of understanding and evaluating the scientific validity and relevance of the research. As a medical professor, I am tasked with guiding students through this process and helping them develop the necessary skills to effectively analyze and interpret scientific studies. To that end, I have selected the cohort study design for review and will provide an example critique based on the guidelines outlined in Chapter 14 of the textbook.
Answer:
The cohort study design is a common approach to investigating the relationship between an exposure and an outcome over time. In this particular cohort study titled “Effects of long-term air pollution exposure on lung function in adults: A 15-year follow-up study,” authors sought to assess the long-term effects of air pollution exposure on lung function in a representative sample of Swedish adults.
The authors used a prospective cohort study design and recruited 2,164 individuals from a population-based sample of adults. The study spanned over 15 years, with lung function measurements taken at baseline and follow-up assessments. The authors used statistical analysis to adjust for potential confounding variables such as smoking, age, sex, and education level.
The study had several strengths, including a large sample size, long-term follow-up, and the use of statistical modeling to control for confounding variables. However, there were several limitations that should be taken into consideration. Firstly, the study relied on self-reported data to classify air pollution exposure and smoking status, which may introduce recall bias. Furthermore, the study was conducted in a specific geographical region and may not be generalizable to other populations.
Overall, this cohort study provides valuable insights into the long-term effects of air pollution exposure on lung function in adults. However, the limitations of the study highlight the need for caution in interpreting the results and generalizing to broader populations.
