Guidelines for Grand Rounds and Journal Club Meetings
As possible, please try to briefly cover the following key points during journal club discussions
and/or grand rounds when presenting research findings:
1) Type of study and study design
2) Source of funding
3) Sample selection strategy and characteristics of sample
4) Analytical approach used
5) How generalizable are results?
6) How would you discuss the findings with patients?


For study enrollment?
For application of study results to the patient’s care?
The following two page document on Critical Reading of the Medical Literature: Structured
Review of Articles provides a suggested format for those who are preparing summaries of
article for journal club.
UNC Obstetrics & Gynecology | Journal Club and Grand Rounds Guidelines
June 2014
UNC Obstetrics & Gynecology
Journal Club and Grand Rounds Guidelines
Critical Reading of the Medical Literature: Structured Review of Articles
1) What was the purpose of the study?
2) List the study’s hypothesis and comment on whether they are directly stated or implied.
3) Basic description of study design:
a. What kind of study was it
b. Describe the study population (use of sampling, defined eligibility criteria, etc.)
c. Identify potential problems with design (selection bias, inappropriate comparison
groups, etc.)
4) Describe the intervention(s) or treatment(s), if any:
5) Data collection
a. What was measured
b. How and when were data collected?
c. Identify any problems with data and data collection (factors measured, factors poorly
measured, subjects lost to follow-up, etc.)
6) Is the plan for data analysis clear and reasonable?
June 2014
2
UNC Obstetrics & Gynecology
Journal Club and Grand Rounds Guidelines
7) Results:
a. Discuss the presentation of the data (content and clarity of tables and text).
b. List and discuss important result:
c. Discuss the investigators’ interpretations and conclusions:
8) Overall critique of the study:
a. Did the investigators accomplish what they set out to do?
b. Summarize both successes/innovations and fatal flaws/major problems in design,
methodology, or interpretations. What would you do differently?
9) Is the study relevant for clinical practice?
10) Are the results generalizable?
11) Overall summary rating of the paper
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
Severe limitations in interpreting results of drawing conclusions
Questionable confidence in results or conclusions
Worth reading, but some limitations
Outstanding contribution
12) Justification:
June 2014
3