The first four steps in the critique of quantitative research are comprehension, comparison, analysis, and evaluation (Boswell & Cannon, 2014; Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014). The awareness of and the ability to apply the critique process in nursing research serves as a means of building the knowledge and awareness of the nursing student or nurse, allowing him or her to better understand the concepts involved in order to make critical decisions regarding the applicability of the knowledge contained within the article itself as it pertains to the work and workplace of the individual (Ingham-Broomfield, 2014). In order to better explore this topic, a critique of an article written by Feola, Boffano, Procopio, Reynaud, Allemano, and Rizzi (1998) entitled “Ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring: Correlation between blood pressure variability and left ventricular hypertrophy in untreated hypertensive patients” will be conducted using the four previously identified steps.

In the critique process, comprehension refers to the ability of the reader to understand the terms or concepts that are described within the article, and the presence of the steps taken throughout the research process (Boswell & Cannon, 2014; Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014). All time frames are clearly defined within the article, all abbreviations used have a correlating term provided, indicating what the researchers were abbreviating specifically and the article flows in a logical format. Furthermore, the researchers documented the steps taken in the collection of data and in the completion of the study.

The next stage of the critique process is comparison. In this stage, the individual evaluating the article compares what is present within the study to the criteria or guidelines set forth for the completion of the study, much in the way a teacher compares a written assignment to a rubric (Boswell & Cannon, 2014; Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014). In this case, the guidelines for publication in Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia are not provided, nor are they available on the journal’s website (2017). In order to obtain the criteria for publication in the journal, an individual must contact the journal in writing (Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia, 2017). As such, this article cannot be assessed at the comparison stage, but, given the fact that the article was published by the journal, it is reasonable to assume that the article meets all of the criteria set forth for publication.

The third stage of the critique process is analysis. In this stage, the individual analyzing the article must determine whether the links between the different study elements are logical, looking at whether each of the different elements presented can be logically connected to the others in a rational fashion (Boswell & Cannon, 2014; Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014). Feola et al. (1998) provide the background, methods, results, and conclusions of their study. Each of these four sections of the study is clearly connected to the next, with the background clearly indicating the reason for the study, the methods being in line with the background information, the results in line with the methods used, and the conclusions sound, as based on the results section and the background information provided by the researchers.

In the final stage of the critique process, evaluation, the reader must determine the meaning and the significance of the study as they pertain to nursing, identifying whether or not the study is relevant to the nursing field (Boswell & Cannon, 2014; Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014). As it is typically the responsibility of nurses to document and record blood pressure variations, and in cases where electronic automatic blood pressure readers are not used, to take the patient’s blood pressure as well, the identification of a correlation between blood pressure variability and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients who are not being treated for a hypertensive condition but who are hypertensive, is pertinent to the profession.