STM1001 Topic 1B Readings

class: middle
background-image: url(data:image/png;base64,#LTU_logo.jpg)
background-position: top left
background-size: 30%

# STM1001 [Topic 10B](https://bookdown.org/a_shaker/STM1001_Topic_10B_Sci/1-Reading.html) Lecture
## Reading Research
### La Trobe University
This lecture complements the [Topic 10B readings](https://bookdown.org/a_shaker/STM1001_Topic_10B_Sci/1-Reading.html)

---

# Topic 10B: Reading Research

### You will learn to read about the research of others.

---
#  Introduction

Science requires reading the research of others. Research is usually communicated in *journal articles* (also called papers), or sometimes in presentations (conferences; seminars). Millions of journal articles are available (many online), and this subject references many articles.

To understand a paper, the six steps of the research process can be used as a guide:

* **Ask the question**: What research question is the paper answering? Are inclusion and/or exclusion criteria given?;
* **Design the study**: How did the authors design the study? Is the study designed to maximize internal and external validity? What are the design limitations?;
* **Collect the data**: How did the authors collect the data? Could the study be approximately repeated if needed?;
* **Describe and summarise the data**: Is the data summary appropriate, complete and clear?;
* **Analyse the data**: Is the analysis appropriate, accurate, valid and clear?
* **Report the results**: Are the results accurately, appropriately and well reported? What is the answer to the RQ? What other questions have emerged?
---

# Example 1: Reading research

A study [[1]](https://bookdown.org/a_shaker/STM1001_Topic_10B_Sci/1-2-ReadExample1.html#ref-data:Fritts2018:Vegetables) explored the impact of adding herbs and spices to the consumption of vegetables by adolescent school children. Part of the Abstract states:
--

**Purpose:** We evaluated whether new vegetable recipes using herbs and spices would increase preference for vegetables served to adolescents at this school.

**Methods**: To evaluate recipe acceptance, we assessed liking (100 mm visual analog scales) among students (n = 96--110; aged 14--18 years) for 8 plain (oil and salt) and 8 seasoned vegetables. Liking ratings between plain and seasoned vegetables were compared with paired  
t-tests...

**Results**: Students reported higher liking for several seasoned recipes compared to plain: broccoli (P=0.02), vegetable dip (P<0.0001), black beans and corn (P<0.001) and cauliflower (P<0.0001).

**Conclusions**: Common herbs and spices improved liking for several school lunch vegetables compared to plain varieties among rural high school students...
---

# Example 1: Reading research

Later we read this (again, slightly edited):

This is a cross-sectional study assessing preference for plain and seasoned vegetables in a population of middle/high school students (aged 14--18 years) attending a rural Pennsylvania public school.

Even using this (small amount) of information, much can be learnt about the study. For example: **Ask the question**: The **POCI** elements are:

**Population**: 'middle/high school students (aged 14--18 years) attending a rural Pennsylvania public school'

**Outcome**: The mean difference in taste ratings between plain and seasoned vegetables. The taste ratings are given using a '100 mm visual analog scale'.

**Comparison**: There is no comparison: Every member of the population is treated the same way. A comparison exists if different subsets of the population are treated differently (for example, one group of students is given plain vegetables, and a different group is given seasoned vegetables).

**Intervention**: No; there is no comparison, so there is no comparison to be allocated.

---

# Example 1: Reading research

**Design the study**: Since this RQ is descriptive, the study is descriptive. The participants were probably not blinded, since the presence of seasoning was probably obvious.

**Collect the data**: No details are given about the data collection.

**Describe and summarise the data**: The Abstract gives no summary data (since eight vegetables were studied, this would have consumed too much space I guess).

**Analyse the data**: The data were analysed using paired  
t-tests, one for each different vegetable used. (Each subject gave two ratings for each vegetable: one for plain vegetables and one for seasoned vegetables),

**Report the results**: Evidence exists of a mean difference (that students preferred the seasoned vegetables) in many cases, but not all (the Abstract states that eight vegetables were used, with statistically significant differences for five).

---

name: menti
class: middle
background-image: url(data:image/png;base64,#menti.jpg)
background-size: 115%

# Kahoot!

## Go to [kahoot.it](https://kahoot.it/) and use

## the code provided

---

# Example 2: Reading research

Consider this Abstract [[2]](https://bookdown.org/a_shaker/STM1001_Topic_10B_Sci/1-3-ReadExample2.html#ref-data:Groves:bicycleweight)

**Objective** Whether the author's 20.9 lb (9.5 kg) carbon bicycle reduced commuting time compared with his 29.75 lb (13.5 kg) steel bicycle.

**Design** Randomised trial.

**Setting** Sheffield and Chesterfield, United Kingdom, between mid-January 2010 and mid-July 2010.

**Participants** One consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care.

**Main outcome measure** Total time to complete the 27 mile (43.5 kilometre) journey from Sheffield to Chesterfield Royal Hospital and back.

**Results** The total distance travelled on the steel frame bicycle during the study period was 809 miles (1302 km) and on the carbon frame bicycle was 711 miles (1144 km). The difference in the mean journey time between the steel and carbon bicycles was 00:00:32 (hr:min:sec).

**Conclusions** A lighter bicycle did not lead to a detectable difference in commuting time.

---
# Example 2: Reading research

Ask the question: The POCI elements are:

**Population**: The trips by this rider, on his bikes, on his route to work. This is not easy to identify, but notice that there are many examples of this rider, on his bikes, on his route. For example, there are not many examples of different bikes, different riders, or different routes.

**Outcome**: 'Total time to complete the 27 mile (43.5 kilometre) journey'.

**Comparison**: Between the steel-frame and carbon-frame bicycles.

**Intervention**: Yes, because the elements of the population (the different commutes) can be randomly allocated to be taken with the steel- or carbon-frame bikes.

**Design the study**: The study is 'randomised controlled trial', a type of experimental study. Random allocation has been used.

**Collect the data**: The Abstract gives no information.
---

# Example 2: Reading research

**Describe and summarise the data**: The Abstract gives no summary data for each bike, but summarises the difference between the means: 32 seconds (95% CI between -3:34 and 2:30 minutes, but which bike produces the faster mean time is not stated).

**Analyse the data**: Though not stated, probably a two-sample t-test.

**Report the results**: 'A lighter bicycle did not lead to a detectable difference in commuting time': There is no evidence that the carbon-frame bicycle reduced the commmuting time (for this rider, on his route to work, with his bikes...). In any case, the difference between the two mean commuting times is 32 seconds... over a 43.5 kilometre journey: Hardly of any practical importance (e.g., see effect sizes)!

This is a poor RQ: it is not relevant or interesting to anyone except this single rider: The results are relevant to one person in the entire world...

---

background-image: url(data:image/png;base64,#computerlab.jpg)
background-position: bottom
background-size: 75%
class: center

# See you in the computer labs!

---
class: middle

<font color = "grey">
These notes have been prepared by Illia Donhauzer. They are based on material written by Peter K. Dunn. Unless otherwise stated, material within this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike License <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA </a>
</font>