The fastest way to learn how to write a nursing research critique is to read a finished one. Below is a complete nursing research article critique example built on a real, widely cited study, followed by a shorter qualitative example.
Each section shows the kind of balanced, evidence-backed judgement lecturers reward: a strength or limitation, why it matters, and what it means for nursing practice. Notes after each section explain what the example does well, so you can apply the same moves to your own article.
If you want the full process first, including the questions to ask at every stage, read our guide on how to critique a nursing research article.
Use these examples to learn, not to copy. Your critique must be your own work on the article your lecturer approved. Submitting this text would count as plagiarism.
The article critiqued in this example
The example critiques a landmark quantitative nursing workforce study:
Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Bruyneel, L., Van den Heede, K., Griffiths, P., Busse, R., Diomidous, M., Kinnunen, J., Kózka, M., Lesaffre, E., McHugh, M. D., Moreno-Casbas, M. T., Rafferty, A. M., Schwendimann, R., Scott, P. A., Tishelman, C., van Achterberg, T., & Sermeus, W. (2014). Nurse staffing and education and hospital mortality in nine European countries: A retrospective observational study. The Lancet, 383(9931), 1824–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62631-8
The study is part of the RN4CAST project. An accepted manuscript is free to read on LJMU Research Online, so you can follow the critique alongside the paper.
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| Design | Retrospective, cross-sectional observational study |
| Setting | 300 hospitals in Belgium, England, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland |
| Patients | 422,730 surgical patients aged 50 or older (general, orthopaedic, vascular surgery) |
| Nurses | 26,516 bedside nurses surveyed in 2009–2010 |
| Outcome | Death in hospital within 30 days of admission |
| Analysis | Generalised estimating equations (GEE), checked with hierarchical models |
| Key findings | Each extra patient per nurse raised the odds of death by 7% (OR 1.068, 95% CI 1.031–1.106); each 10% rise in bachelor’s-educated nurses lowered them by 7% (OR 0.929, 95% CI 0.886–0.973) |
Nursing research article critique example (quantitative)
The sample below is written the way a strong BSN or MSN critique would be. It runs to roughly 1,400 words; a 2,000-word assignment would expand each section with more supporting references.
Introduction
This paper critiques Aiken et al. (2014), a retrospective observational study examining whether nurse staffing levels and nurses’ educational qualifications are associated with surgical patient mortality across nine European countries. The study was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) cohort study checklist, supplemented by the STROBE reporting guideline for observational studies. Overall, the study is methodologically strong and highly relevant to nursing practice, although its cross-sectional design limits causal claims.
Why this works: it names the article, design, tool and an overall verdict in four sentences.
Title, authors and abstract
The title is clear and informative, identifying the variables (nurse staffing and education), outcome (hospital mortality), setting (nine European countries) and design. The 18 authors include nurse researchers, health economists and a biostatistician from leading universities, which strengthens confidence in the study’s expertise. The structured abstract accurately summarises the aim, methods, sample size, findings and interpretation. Funding came from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme and national bodies, and the authors state that sponsors had no role in preparing the manuscript, which reduces concern about funding bias.
Background and literature review
The authors frame a clear problem: austerity measures in Europe made nurse staffing an easy target for cost savings, yet European evidence on staffing and outcomes came mainly from single-country studies. They draw on the Francis Report and the Keogh review to show the real-world consequences of understaffing, which makes the study’s relevance to nursing explicit. A PubMed search from 1985 to 2013 is reported in a research-in-context panel. However, the search used only one database and English-language papers. Omitting CINAHL, the main nursing database, may have missed relevant nursing studies, and the review is brief because of journal word limits.
Why this works: a strength, a limitation, and the reason the limitation matters.
Aim and theoretical framework
The aim is clearly stated: to assess whether differences in patient-to-nurse ratios and nurse education across nine countries are associated with variation in surgical mortality. No hypothesis is formally stated, although the direction of the expected association is implied by earlier research. The paper does not name a theoretical framework, such as Donabedian’s structure-process-outcome model, which would have helped explain how staffing and education might lead to patient deaths.
Research design
A retrospective observational design is appropriate. Randomly assigning patients to poorly staffed hospitals would be unethical, so an experimental design was not possible. Linking a large nurse survey with routinely collected discharge data allowed analysis on a scale few nursing studies achieve. The key limitation, acknowledged by the authors, is that cross-sectional data cannot establish cause and effect. The findings show association only, and longitudinal studies would be needed to confirm that changing staffing changes mortality.
Sample and setting
The sample is a major strength. Data on 422,730 patients in 300 hospitals give high statistical power and precise estimates, shown by narrow confidence intervals. Hospitals were sampled across regions, with most acute hospitals included in Sweden, Norway and Ireland. Restricting patients to those aged 50 or over undergoing common general, orthopaedic or vascular surgery was justified: these procedures happen in almost all hospitals and have well-validated risk adjustment methods. The trade-off is reduced generalisability. The findings may not apply to medical patients, younger adults or high-risk surgery, which the authors acknowledge.
The nurse survey response rate averaged 63% but fell to just under 40% in England. Low response raises the risk of non-response bias; if dissatisfied or overworked nurses responded at different rates, staffing estimates could be skewed.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was granted by the lead university, the Catholic University of Leuven, and at institutional and national level in each participating country. Using anonymised administrative data avoided direct contact with patients. The accepted manuscript does not describe how nurse consent and confidentiality were handled, although survey completion typically implies consent. Readers would need to consult the RN4CAST protocol paper (Sermeus et al., 2011) for these details.
Why this works: it reports what was done and what is missing, without assuming either.
Data collection and measurement
Collecting staffing data directly from bedside nurses is a methodological strength, because it avoids country-to-country differences in administrative reporting and counts only nurses in direct-care roles. Staffing was calculated from each nurse’s report of patients and nurses on their last shift, averaged across respondents in each hospital. However, this is self-reported and relies on recall. The authors note it may be skewed if night-shift nurses, who usually carry heavier workloads, responded at different rates than day-shift nurses.
The education measure, the percentage of nurses holding a bachelor’s degree, depends on each country’s definition of a bachelor’s degree, which varies. In Spain and Norway every nurse had a bachelor’s degree, so those countries contribute no within-country variation in education. Mortality data and nurse surveys were also not perfectly aligned in time: patient data came from 2007–2009 and nurse surveys from 2009–2010.
Data analysis
The statistical approach is appropriate and well reported. Generalised estimating equations account for patients being clustered within hospitals, and the results were confirmed with hierarchical linear models, which strengthens confidence in them. Risk adjustment for age, sex, admission type, 43 surgery types and 17 comorbidities from the Charlson index reduces confounding by case mix. Hospital size, teaching status, technology and nurse work environment were also controlled.
The authors report odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals and p-values, allowing readers to judge both the size and precision of effects. Notably, neither factor was significant when examined one at a time with country controls only, and both became significant once hospital and patient characteristics were adjusted. This pattern shows the importance of adjustment, but the paper explains it only briefly, and a student reader may find it hard to interpret.
Results
Results are presented clearly in four tables showing hospital and patient numbers, staffing and education by country, patient characteristics and the adjusted models. Each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7% increase in the odds of death within 30 days (OR 1.068, 95% CI 1.031–1.106), and each 10% increase in bachelor’s-educated nurses with a 7% decrease (OR 0.929, 95% CI 0.886–0.973). The authors translate these into a practical scenario, showing almost 30% lower mortality in hospitals with better staffing and education, and they show the arithmetic. This makes the clinical significance easy to grasp, not just the statistical significance.
Discussion and limitations
The discussion links the findings to similar US and Canadian studies and to the 2013 European Parliament decision on nurse education. The authors give an honest, detailed list of limitations: one outcome, common surgeries only, varying definitions of education, possible shift-related bias, unmeasured confounding, imperfect timing of data, and cross-sectional design. This transparency strengthens the study’s credibility. However, describing it as possibly the most rigorous study of its kind in Europe is a strong claim that readers should weigh against those limitations.
Implications for nursing practice
Despite its limits, the study provides robust, multi-country evidence that safe nurse staffing and a higher proportion of degree-educated nurses are linked to fewer surgical deaths. For nurse managers, it supports resisting staffing cuts made purely to save money. For educators and policymakers, it supports degree-level entry to practice. Because the evidence is associational, it is best used alongside other studies, such as systematic reviews of staffing and outcomes, when making workforce decisions.
Conclusion
Aiken et al. (2014) is a well-designed, transparently reported observational study with a very large sample, robust statistics and strong relevance to nursing. Its main weaknesses are the cross-sectional design, self-reported staffing data, low response in some countries and limited generalisability beyond common surgeries. Future longitudinal research, including medical patients and non-mortality outcomes, would strengthen the evidence. On balance, the study offers credible evidence that should inform nurse staffing and education policy.
Qualitative nursing research critique example
Qualitative studies are judged by trustworthiness, not statistical power, so the critique reads differently. This shorter example appraises an open-access phenomenological study using the CASP qualitative checklist.
Sun, N., Wei, L., Shi, S., Jiao, D., Song, R., Ma, L., Wang, H., Wang, C., Wang, Z., You, Y., Liu, S., & Wang, H. (2020). A qualitative study on the psychological experience of caregivers of COVID-19 patients. American Journal of Infection Control, 48(6), 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2020.03.018
Aim and design
The study aimed to explore the psychological experience of nurses caring for COVID-19 patients in a hospital in Henan, China, early in the outbreak. A phenomenological design fits this aim, because the question concerns lived experience rather than measurement. The authors justify the study by noting that no qualitative research on nurses’ experiences of COVID-19 had yet been published.
Sampling and data collection
Twenty nurses were selected through purposive sampling between 20 January and 10 February 2020, and recruitment continued until data saturation, which is appropriate. A notable strength is that each nurse was interviewed about three times on average, combining face-to-face and telephone interviews. This captured how feelings changed over time rather than a single snapshot. Interviews lasted 40–60 minutes, were recorded and were transcribed within 24 hours.
The sample is homogeneous: all participants came from one hospital, all held a bachelor’s degree and all were Han Chinese. This limits transferability, which the authors partly acknowledge by noting the single-centre design.
Researcher reflexivity
The authors describe the interviewer’s background in detail: a master’s-prepared nurse with 20 years of experience, a former head nurse in a SARS isolation ward and a certified psychological counsellor. This expertise likely helped build rapport. However, the authors work at the same hospital as the participants, and the paper does not discuss how this senior position might have influenced what nurses felt able to say. Given the public framing of nurses as heroes at the time, social desirability bias may have encouraged positive accounts.
Ethics
Ethical approval was granted by the hospital’s ethics committee (code 2020-03-B001), all participants gave written informed consent and they could withdraw at any time. Psychological support was offered if participants became distressed, which is an important safeguard when interviewing staff in a crisis.
Analysis and rigour
Data were analysed using Colaizzi’s seven-step method, and two researchers extracted significant statements independently, with disagreements settled by a wider research group. This strengthens dependability. However, the final step of Colaizzi’s method, returning findings to participants for validation, is not reported, so credibility through member checking cannot be confirmed. The authors also report counts, such as how many nurses expressed each feeling, which is unusual in phenomenology and adds little to the depth of meaning.
Findings
Four themes are presented: early negative emotions, coping and self-care, growth under pressure, and positive emotions alongside negative ones. Each theme is well supported by participant quotes in a detailed table, so readers can judge whether the interpretation fits the data. The finding that positive and negative emotions coexisted adds nuance to studies that reported only distress.
Value to nursing practice
The study offers useful insight for nurse managers planning for outbreaks: early training, adequate protective equipment, peer support and family-related support may help nurses adapt. Because of the small, single-site sample and possible social desirability bias, the findings should be read alongside other studies, but they provide credible, rich evidence about nurses’ experiences in the first weeks of an epidemic.
What makes these critique examples earn high marks
Both examples follow the same habits that separate an A-grade critique from a summary.
| Habit | Weak critique | Strong critique (as in the examples) |
|---|---|---|
| Balance | Lists only faults | Names strengths first, then limitations |
| Consequence | “The response rate was low.” | “Response fell below 40% in England, raising the risk of non-response bias in staffing estimates.” |
| Design-appropriate criteria | Criticises a qualitative study for its small sample | Judges qualitative work by saturation, reflexivity and member checking |
| Precision | “The results were significant.” | Reports odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and explains clinical meaning |
| Fairness | Assumes missing details mean poor practice | States what is not reported and where to look for it |
| Practice link | Ends with the study’s findings | Ends with what nurses, managers or educators should do |
How to adapt these examples to your own article
- Confirm your article’s design, then choose the matching CASP or JBI checklist.
- Use the same section headings as the quantitative or qualitative example above.
- For each section, write one strength, one limitation and why each matters.
- Support judgements with research methods sources, such as Polit and Beck or the appraisal tool itself.
- Finish with implications for practice and a one-paragraph verdict.
For the full list of questions to ask at every stage, see our step-by-step guide on how to critique a nursing research article.
Get expert help with your nursing article critique
Seeing a model critique helps, but applying it to your own article under deadline pressure is another matter. Our nursing writers critique quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies every week, using CASP, JBI and your school’s rubric.
With our nursing research paper help, you can send your brief, rubric and chosen article and receive a custom, plagiarism-free critique you can learn from.
- Confused by odds ratios or p-values in your article? Our inferential statistics help for nursing research explains them in plain language.
- Already drafted your critique? Our editing and proofreading service sharpens structure, tone and APA 7 referencing.
- Need a complete paper? See our nursing paper writing service.
Get a free quote today. We reply within 30 minutes, 24/7.
Frequently asked questions
What should a nursing research article critique example include?
A full citation, a short summary of the study, a section-by-section appraisal of strengths and limitations, implications for practice and a clear overall verdict. It should name the appraisal tool used.
Can I use a critique example as a template?
Yes, use its structure and headings as a template. Do not copy its wording or judgements; your critique must be original and based on your own article.
Is the Aiken et al. (2014) study good for a critique assignment?
It works well for practice because it is widely cited, freely available as an accepted manuscript and has clear strengths and limitations. Check with your lecturer before choosing it, as some prefer articles from the last five years.
How is a qualitative critique example different from a quantitative one?
A quantitative critique focuses on sampling, validity, reliability and statistics. A qualitative critique focuses on trustworthiness: credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability and researcher reflexivity.
How long should my nursing article critique be?
Most assignments set 1,500 to 3,000 words. The quantitative example here is about 1,400 words; add more supporting references and depth to reach a longer limit.
Which appraisal tool did these examples use?
The quantitative example used the CASP cohort checklist with the STROBE reporting guideline. The qualitative example used the CASP qualitative checklist.
