Fairly critiquing an investigator's research endeavor is a task that must be taken seriously. Although it is quite easy to have an opinion of another's research it is something quite different to be able to evaluate the research activity in terms of topic specificity and soundness, intent or purpose, data analysis, and informational importance. When embarking upon a critical analysis of another's work the reviewer must, at all times, adhere to the basic principle of prudent evaluation; namely, evaluating the structure of the research upon which scientific conclusion are drawn. More specifically, the function of a research report (article) is to inform readers about the problem being investigated, the methods used to solve the problem, the results of the investigation, and the conclusions being inferred from the results. The printed manuscript is to inform the reader, as expeditiously as possible, what was done, the outcome of the doing, and the investigator's conclusion.

In addition to the above, research reports must be succinct, objective, and crys

Following a well-defined research question the research investigators' task is to follow-up with a statement of a testable null hypothesis or hypotheses. The null form of the hypothesis is required in order for the proper application of a statistical data analysis tool to be implemented (Ohlson, 1998). More specifically, the null hypothesis informs the reader whether or not relationships, differences, and or effects between and amongst independent and or dependent variables are being investigated. Simply stating that an attempt to "confer" that an insulin deficiency might or might not affirm a "predisposition to complications" is not adhering to proper scientific research protocol (Van Dalen, 1964). Quite simply, the authors are obligated to state very specifically the direction they expected the results to take. In addition, as the study is quite clearly of experimental design wherein two treatment modalities are being assessed and evaluated the authors are compelled to identify both the independent (treatment) and dependent (measurement or end point) variables. There is no such identification made by the research investigators and the reader has to make the treatment-measurement assumption him or herself. Compounding this problem are the authors' statements under the Outcome Section of their report that several measurement variables, in addition to the primary measurement variable of death, were being used, ranging from length of stay, to days in intensive care, to amount of antibiotics, to polyneuropathy, to markers of inflammation. All such variables must be stated in secondary research and null hypothesis format.

Although the importance of the study is not to be restricted, the manner in which the study was conducted leaves much to be desired. In addition, the use of the personal pronoun "we" in any scientific investigation is unacceptable. However, the blame here lies with the editors.

Substantive Qualities All empirical research reports, whether medical, sociological, psychological, or educational, must first be well-defined, remindful of ambiguity, and reader friendly - even for those who are not pundits in the subject matter being reported upon (Kerlinger, 1967). The first step in informing the reader of a research investigation is to present a clearly defined research problem. To this end the research investigator is obligated to present an issue and or problem that has not been sufficiently resolved in previous research investigative endeavors (Ohlson, 1998). The authors of the current project were, in opening statements, remiss in presenting a well-defined research question. Although the authors advised the reader that insulin therapy (standard and intensive) and adult mortality and morbidity was the focus of the investigation a meaningful presentation with respect to need was omitted. In other words, the authors did not build a medical or healthcare based paradigm for the study. This might have been taken care of by presenting previous reported research data highlighting concerns other investigators had with respect to medical problems associated with glucose levels - mortality rates and critically ill medical consumers.

Study Design Qualities. All research endeavors are bound to certain requirements and studies such as that conducted by Van de Berghe, et al are not excused. As reported above a research investigation begins with a felt need followed by a well defined research question and testable null hypothesis. Through a statement of the question and hypothesis the research investigators inform the reader as to the type of research being conducted: experimental, clinical trial based, historical, or descriptive. Knowing that the authors of this study did not identify either the treatment variables or the measurement variables the reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions with respect to what and how the study will come about. Proper research protocol

Some common words found in the essay are:
Outcome Section, Introduction Fairly, Substantive Qualities, Design Qualities, Mann-Whitney Test, Chi Square, Section Knowledge, Student Test, Van Dalen, Knowing Van, critically ill, insulin therapy, van de, de berghe, ill patients, van de berghe, critically ill patients, null hypothesis, berghe et al, berghe et, de berghe et, et al, research question, research investigator, mortality rate critically,
Approximate Word count = 2636
Approximate Pages = 11 (250 words per page double spaced)