The publication by Queiroz et al had a clearly presented aim, comparing the haemostatic measures for bleeding, following tooth extraction in patients on Warfarin anticoagulant therapy. The abstract presents the study’s methods and findings in a concise manner stating the control and study groups, what differentiates them and how the variables that could have influenced the results, were controlled. The presented results were comprehensive and reflected the findings that were to be explored in the aim. The title was informative, stating the participant, the intervention, the outcome, and the study design. A large portion of the references used are more than 20 years old which compromises the prevalence of the research conducted by the paper.

The author has clearly stated what is known about the topic, delving into various results from previous studies. The papers cited in the introduction are not systematic reviews, therefore they do lack a combined evaluation and summary of already conducted studies. Most of the studies are controlled trials, randomized control trials, and prospective controlled studies, which present new findings on the field of research, however the nature of the study means they lack the presentation of a succinct and reviewed understanding on the topic of tranexamic acids effect on haemorrhage following oral surgery. Queiroz et al is not bias in the presentation of the topic in the introduction, and clearly outlines the research question, followed with backing from previous studies that both support and disagree with the research question. However, although the research question is clearly outlined, further detail could still be expanded upon, for example what the specific control groups will be. Given what is already known about the topic, the research question is attempting to diversify and delve further into the specific effects of tranexamic acid on haemostasis post-surgery, by specifically analysing patients that are on warfarin.

The process of subject selection in the study, was only somewhat clear. Forty participants were randomly computer-selected, from a group that attended a particular clinic who were prescribed the known drug (warfarin), and then randomly split up into a control group and a study group. This can result in unbalanced clusters of demographics. The variables are well defined and measured. The method was valid as it intended to measure post-operative bleeding in time intervals to see how much bleeding was experienced, and it did so, however the measurement was ill-defined as it was qualitative rather than quantitative. This makes the method have external validity as qualitative measures are more generalised than quantitative ones. The method was very specific, systemic and structured, therefore had reliability. There is enough detail to replicate the study, however, classifications of the qualitative measurements of bleeding can alter between people conducting the study, therefore the qualitative definitions must be further specified.

The data presentation was a bit confusing and would have better been presented in a table rather than as a paragraph. Appropriate rounding of decimals was conducted, and categories were grouped, and results listed suitably. The text in the results is not repetitive or irrelevant, except when the controls are being listed. This is not required in the results section. Had a different form of measurement been adapted, there would be less of a need for words, allowing the results to be presented more comprehensively. In the study, it is clear what a statistically significant result is and whether that has been achieved, as well as confidence intervals and p-values. The study compares some results in days (numerically) and thus explicitly states values to show practically meaningful results.

The results are thoroughly discussed in the discussion, and presented from multiple angles, contextualising the results for everyday situations and scenarios. The authors conclusion answered the aim of the study deducing that the independent variable does have a positive effect on treatment and should be adapted for use, and furthermore it introduces the path that this research can lead onto, by raising questions for future research, as well as using references to support its findings. Although there are limitations to the study, they only present further opportunities for research.

Overall, the study design was appropriate for the aim, and the specificity of the research allowed further knowledge and conclusions to be attained on the topic, however, in general, more effective research strategies need to be identified to allow qualitative data to be gathered and interpreted. A major flaw experienced in the article was that although it was specific in terms of the research being conducted, it was carried out poorly, using poor measurements, making the results difficult to assess and compare.