A simplified approach to critically appraising research evidence
Evidence and practice    

A simplified approach to critically appraising research evidence

Peter Raby Senior lecturer, School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, England
Rebekah Jayne McNaughton Senior lecturer, School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, England

Why you should read this article:
  • To appreciate why reading and understanding research is an important part of evidence-based practice

  • To benefit from an easy-to-use critical appraisal framework to evaluate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods research

  • To understand critical concepts and how to apply them to contextualise the framework

Abstract Background Evidence-based practice is embedded in all aspects of nursing and care. Understanding research evidence and being able to identify the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of published primary research is an essential skill of the evidence-based practitioner. However, it can be daunting and seem overly complex.

Aim To provide a single framework that researchers can use when reading, understanding and critically assessing published research.

Discussion To make sense of published research papers, it is helpful to understand some key concepts and how they relate to either quantitative or qualitative designs. Internal and external validity, reliability and trustworthiness are discussed. An illustration of how to apply these concepts in a practical way using a standardised framework to systematically assess a paper is provided.

Conclusion The ability to understand and evaluate research builds strong evidence-based practitioners, who are essential to nursing practice.

Implications for practice This framework should help readers to identify the strengths, potential weaknesses and limitations of a paper to judge its quality and potential usefulness.

Nurse Researcher. 29, 1, 32-41. doi: 10.7748/nr.2021.e1760



Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared


To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/write-for-nurse-researcher

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in


Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now