The article that is being reviewed is regarding the topic 'The impact of ophthalmic presentations and screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Sydney metropolitan emergency department' and while there have been some good parts to it there can be some parts which require improvement to be done. First and foremost, ophthalmic is the term used for eye treatment and diseases related to it.
Talking in general terms it seems that the good parts are the amount of data that is collected and how it has been supported by various literature. This has helped to increase the validity of the whole article but on the other hand, there is some part like the methodology which could have used further improvement. This peer review critique will highlight various areas within the report that are highly appreciable and which ones are that need working upon to be done.
The first thing that would be looked at is that the introduction that has been done does provide a brief overview about what is about to be covered within the article but it seems that if a background was provided upon the topic taken then it would have been adequate. The background would have been helpful to identify how ophthalmic presentations and screening were before the COVID 19 took place. This would have helped to provide a better understanding of when such screening is to be done and what it is. Many terms are used within the paper that seems to not make sense to a layman. Hence, there should have been a proper description of what ophthalmic is and why it is necessary to be done.
Within the introduction, it seems that there has been a literature review that has been performed and yet it seems that it is not constructed effectively. The introductions seem to be messed up because of this and it has led to a huge area of a large amount of information just being bunched together. Instead, a literature review should have been presented here. It can be given that the author has done effective research as various authors and their works have been mentioned but if it has further dwelled within, there could have been better understanding achieved.
The aim is missing from the introduction along with the objectives as well as the research question, should be included in line 57. All of these would have provided further articulation on what the research is trying to accomplish and narrow the topic more to specified areas. A proper path would have been created for the reader when the article was going.
Between sentences 134 to 147 there has been a clear articulation of what were the various participants and from where they came from. It helped to build the validity of the whole research. On the other hand, there did seem to be a number of information that seemed to be missing from the whole methodology section.
The first thing that should be noted is that the chronology that the method has been presented in. The ethical consideration which has been mentioned should go in the last part of the whole method but instead, it has been introduced within the first.
Instead what is missing from the report is whether there was a qualitative or quantitative data collection method used, what was the approach that was used to collect the data (inductive or deductive) and even identifying whether it was a primary source or a secondary one. All this is covered within Saunders research onion that would have helped to provide a high adequate methodology.
Though the author has mentioned how data analysis will be done in an effective manner it seems that there has been an abbreviation used and an explanation of the analysis technique has also been left out.
In line 157 it has been mentioned that the SAS technique will be used and no explanation on what this technology is or how it helps to show the data collected will be done.
The analysis part of the article seems to be the one that does not have any mistakes as it has been done adequately and with great success. All of the data that was collected has been represented in a good manner and proper statistical analysis of it has been done. There have even been explanations done of what has been achieved within the data. The same goes for the discussion as it has been done effectively and has compared the data that has been achieved to the past data that is already present within the market. However, the key aspect of whether the aim has been achieved or not is missing from within the paper.
The limitations of the paper have been mentioned but it seems that headings for it should have been given as it looks like it is part of the discussion. Recommendations are also missing from the whole article. The recommendation would have shown how the article could be useful to healthcare centres and also what could have been done better in order to improve the whole report.
Coming to the vocabulary and grammatical mistakes it seems that there was none within the paper except within one area where the sentence did not seem to be making sense. From lines 239 to 240, the sentence which has been given does not make any sense.
From the critical review that was done, it seems that there has been a number of additions that could have been done within the article but there were also some parts that seemed to be highly appreciable. This helped to see that though there were an abundance amount of data that was collected, putting it in a proper format and addition the various missing aspects could have made it better.