I've taken several more parses through on the paper. I understand what the authors think the data says, and I sort of understand why... Just really grateful that I don't have to present it; I don't think I could explain it without loads more work, nor do I feel like I understand all the logic. It's a multifactoral paper with several cohorts and the data is still dizzying (I'd love to see those p-values because a lot more than 20 tests were run with a 95% threshold...). If I really had to, I could maybe spend more time looking it over, but at this point, I'd probably read the surrounding literature (it was done to validate some studies performed in other models, and better explore its own model). If I get a chance, I'm going to at least skim some other papers in the field to see if they're all this hard to read. But for now, vet school essays and job applications are taking priority.
Often times heavy data tables will star or bold or italicize the important info like certain p values they want to point out to you. Are there any starred or bolded?
Nope
Just lots of footnotes. Which I could barely follow. They're looking at several factors, and which measures are statistically significant with each factor. I understand that they're doing this because even in a laboratory model, organisms are complicated. I'm glad they considered the complexity and planned lots of analysis into the study to reduce animal use, but it doesn't make it easy to parse though...
Adding to previous post...if there’s nothing emphasized on the tables I would then read the abstract. It should very briefly summarize what they found. Then look at the figures and the methods to see if their data backs that up.
I did read the abstract (just not taking it at face value with the idea that I should be doing my own critical thinking). However, there was a lot going on in the paper and the abstract (& intro) only did so much in terms of giving me enough direction and insight to prep me to parse through the data and figure out the analysis goals. Maybe if I was more used to papers in the field then conventions would have done the rest?
Perhaps try thinking about what question the paper is asking, and then ask yourself what information (data) they'd need to make conclusions, and then go look for that data. So do it the other way around from what you are doing - instead of looking at the data and trying to make sense of what it is and why it might be there, get some idea of what data is important to the hypothesis, and then go look to find it.
I ended up doing something similar: taking a look at what they said, and then going back to the tables to confirm. It looks in-line with their p-value footnotes (unsurprising, but always good to check), and the experimental design is solid (standard for the lab, field, etc.), there was just A LOT going on.
If I have time to read more research while I'm taking time to work before vet school, maybe I'll make a research paper organizer to help with complicated papers like these? If I'm going to bother, I'd want to make one that will help me with a variety of "hard" papers and even just reading some more of those would be a big project. Either way, I'll keep y'all's considerations in mind, and if I make something useful I'll put it back up on this thread.
But yeah, I can see how clinicians don't have the time to read the research. Especially more basic science papers like this one. Maybe I'm weird, but I find drug trial studies relaxing to read
I don't want to put the cart before the horse, but I really hope I can (long-term) get a clinical job where I can incorporate helping with and reading research into my work.
