Find the paper behind the headline, then write down who was studied, what was compared, what was measured and how long people were followed. Keep anything you cannot establish as an unanswered question. This gives you a short record of the research without turning a headline into a treatment conclusion.
Find the exact paper
Follow the article’s source link and record the paper’s full title, authors, publication date and journal or other publication venue. Save its DOI or permanent link so you can return to the same source. Keep the news story’s date separate from the paper’s date.
Check whether you have the full paper, an abstract or a summary written by someone else. If the full text is unavailable, say so in your note. Do not fill gaps with details from another study that sounds similar.
Write the headline’s central claim in one sentence. You will compare that wording with the paper’s question and measured outcome.
Record who and what the research examined
Look for the description of the participants: their condition, age range, recruitment setting and the study’s stated inclusion or exclusion criteria. Record what the paper reports rather than assuming a shared condition means a shared study population.
Next, identify the intervention or exposure. Use the paper’s own description of the medicine, preparation or cannabis exposure. If the headline says only ‘cannabis’, check whether the paper gives a more specific description. Leave missing details marked as missing.
Identify the comparison
Ask: compared with what? A comparator might be another treatment, a placebo or no treatment. Record the actual comparison rather than assuming there was a placebo group. If there was no separate comparison group, note that.
In a randomised controlled trial, participants are allocated to interventions at random. In an observational study, researchers observe exposures rather than assigning them. These are different ways of investigating a question. For definitions, use the MCPH glossary entries for randomised controlled trial and observational study.
If the paper reports randomisation or blinding, record what it says. Blinding means keeping information about the assigned treatment from relevant people involved in the study to limit its influence. Do not assume every trial used either safeguard.
Name the outcome and the follow-up
Find the exact outcome the researchers measured. Record the symptom, questionnaire, test or other measure they used, and when they assessed it. Keep the outcome’s name separate from the broader wording of the headline.
Note how long participants were followed and which assessment the headline refers to. If the paper reports several outcomes or assessment times, identify the one supporting the headline’s claim. Do not silently extend that finding to a different outcome or a longer period.
The MCPH glossary can help with unfamiliar terms. For the separate question of how MCPH describes a body of evidence, see how we grade evidence.
Keep the unanswered questions visible
Read the paper’s limitations section. Look for what the authors say about the comparison, missing information and factors that could affect interpretation. In observational research, another factor can distort an association; this is called confounding. Record any such explanation the authors discuss rather than treating an observed association as proof of cause.
Finish with two short sentences: what the paper examined, and what you still cannot establish. If you have only an abstract, limit your note to what that abstract actually reports.
Copyable paper-reading checklist
Headline and link:
Headline’s central claim:
Paper title:
Authors:
Journal or publication venue:
Paper publication date:
DOI or permanent link:
Material read: full paper / abstract / other summary
Study design as reported:
People studied and recruitment setting:
Relevant inclusion or exclusion criteria:
Intervention or exposure as described:
Comparator, or no separate comparison group:
Randomisation reported:
Blinding reported and who was blinded:
Exact measured outcome behind the headline:
How that outcome was measured:
Assessment time and length of follow-up:
Limitations identified by the authors:
Potential confounding discussed:
Important details unavailable in what I read:
This paper examined:
The question it leaves me with:A useful note can contain gaps. Marking ‘not reported in the material I read’ is more accurate than supplying an answer the paper has not given you.
Sources
- NIHR Evidence: Glossary, entries on comparators, observational studies, randomised controlled trials, blinding, bias and confounding.
- NHS: Clinical trials, explanations of comparison groups, randomisation and blinding.
