Critical reviews are an important part of many academic reports, dissertations and theses, as well as evidence-based practice. We write a critical review to examine the value of an article or source – are its points valid? Are its conclusions free from bias? Can we trust it?
Writing critical reviews tests a number of skills – our ability to summarise information and evaluate (critically analyse) conclusions. We must also synthesise arguments – weaving together evidence from different sources to see if it truly agrees with the article’s arguments, or leads us to a different conclusion.
Sounds great, but how do we do it?
How to structure a critical review
Most critical reviews have four sections. An introduction to the article and its context. A summary of the article’s main points and conclusions. A critical evaluation of these arguments, and our own final conclusion.
To examine these, let’s imagine we’re asked to write a critical review of a fictious blog post written by a fictitious drug company (Vital-X ltd) promoting a cancer drug (Drug X). The blog references some research and makes a conclusion that Drug X should be widely prescribed to treat lung cancer.
How to write a critical review introduction
In the introduction, we outline clearly what we’re reviewing, i.e. the title, author and publication date of the article. We may also describe the context of the work. Using our example of the cancer drug blog, we might describe the clinical setting and what treatments are currently used. We also need to state what the intention of our critical review is – to evaluate the blog’s conclusions with reference to scientific evidence, or perhaps a particular ethical framework.
For our fictitious example, the introduction could begin: “This critical review will evaluate a blog titled ‘Drug X will eradicate lung cancer’ published on the Vital-X website (2026). The blog article references two studies performed by Vital-X on…”
How to write a critical review summary
In the summary section we describe the main points and conclusions raised in the article. These questions are useful to keep in mind:
- What are the main conclusions presented?
- What evidence is presented to support these conclusions?
- Who is the target audience of the article (e.g. the public, academics, patients)?
- What is the article trying to achieve?
For our fictitious example, the summary may start: “The blog concludes that Drug X causes a decrease in size of lung tumours over a six-month period. It makes reference to two studies, one in mice (Sheeran et al. 2023) and one using human cells in a lab (Martin et al. 2025). The authors state that the reduction in tumour size and volume is significant and argue that the drug should be made available for wider use…”
How to write a critical review evaluation
Evaluation is the biggest part of writing a critical review, and will carry most of the marks in an assessment. Here we evaluate the article’s strengths and weaknesses in supporting its conclusions.
We examine how well any evidence in the article supports the conclusion. But we also do our own research, weaving together (“synthesising“) conclusions from other relevant studies into a clear picture which may agree or disagree with the author’s conclusions.
Importantly, while we are keeping an open mind, free from bias, we are also highlighting any examples of the author’s bias that we find. Here are some questions to keep in mind while critically evaluating:
- Does the research/ literature referenced in the article fully support the conclusion? Or does the conclusion over-reach? Is it too sweeping? For example, a drug tested in mice may not work in humans. A profound effect after six months may not be the same after five years.
- Are there any gaps in the references? We should look to see if the same effort has been made to include all the relevant literature, even work that contradicts the author’s conclusions. Have any studies been misrepresented? Are there any other, independent, studies performed using Drug X that haven’t been mentioned in the blog.
- Can we synthesize an argument from other research that comments on the conclusion? Imagine the authors of other studies as people discussing (or arguing over!) the conclusion – do they agree? Where do they not agree? Present their points together in a coherent argument, rather than simply listing the references. A good place to look for these is Google Scholar.
- Is there any evidence of bias or a conflict of interests? For example, a drug company promoting their own drug based on data from their own studies. It is perfectly reasonable to highlight areas of doubt without fearing that you are making an accusation. In science, trust is precious and most scientists go to great lengths to ensure impartiality and transparency.
- Is all the data referenced in the article from peer-reviewed studies? Again, having as many people rigorously appraising data increases trust an validity in our conclusions.
- If the article contains data, does it support the conclusion? (A critical review is less likely to focus on data interpretation – this is more often found in larger projects like critical literature reviews, or peer reviews.)
For our fictitious example, our evaluation may start: “The conclusion that Drug X causes a decrease in lung tumours over a six-month period is based in a study on mice (Sheeran et al. 2023), raising concerns about how confidently we can conclude its efficacy in human cancer. Indeed, other studies (Osbourne et al. 2024, Ward et al. 2025) suggest the effect on tumour size is minimal at healthy doses. Two studies (Iommi et al. 2022) and (Butler et al. 2023) show lethal side-effects of the drug in mice. These references were not discussed in the blog, suggesting the conclusions may be biased…”
How to write a critical review conclusion
Your balanced opinion matters. Following your evaluation, do you agree with the conclusions in the article? What is your overall impression? In the conclusion we discuss the value of the article. Feel free to praise the bits of the article you like. Perhaps it’s well written and clear. Maybe some of the conclusion is well supported by the literature. But it’s likely that some or all of the conclusions are not supported or even contradicted. There may be suspicions of bias and vested interests. Do not feel bad about challenging these – after all, left unquestioned, a dangerous drug may find its way into hospitals. While writing the conclusion try thinking “So what?” Well, if I agree, then the conclusions are valid, but if I disagree, then something needs to change – and we can make recommendations for what happens next.
For our fictitious example, our conclusion may start: “Having evaluated the conclusion in the blog, I believe it is misleading. The data in the studies referenced does not support the conclusion and recommendation that Drug X be widely used in humans. Moreover, recent studies not referenced by the blog suggest Drug X has harmful side-effects. In order to address these concerns, further work is required to assess the long-term effects of Drug X, and the safe dose for treatment in human patients…”
Would you like some help with writing a critical review?
I hope these tips help you to write a critical review. It’s likely that your own review will have its own requirements specific to your field – perhaps medicine, nursing or veterinary science. If you’d like help getting to grips with how to start, or feedback from proof reading, please get in touch. I specialise in helping students with critical thinking projects.
Good Luck!
John
Dr John Ankers
Critical thinking tutor
Woolton tutors
