Critical Appraisal Discussion Board
PURPOSE:
TThe overarching goal is to have all of the groups’ articles optimally critically appraised using a collaborative process and for you to be very familiar with all articles chosen by group members.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES:
Within this assignment, Individuals will appraise their selected article and work through a collaborative process with group members to optimally appraise all group articles before completing an evidence table.
ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS:
- Identify one study per group member ensuring that there are no duplicates and that the publication date is within the past 8 years.
- These articles can be from your Module 3 Evidence assignments OR can be new articles that you have identified since that time.
- Do not include more than ONE qualitative study. If there are studies of a higher level of evidence (e.g. a systematic review or meta-analysis or a randomized controlled trial) that fit your clinical question, include at least one of these.
- Include only studies related to, and that are most effective in ‘answering’ your clinical/PICOT question.
- Be sure that all of your studies are RESEARCH studies. If you have questions about this, please reach out via the discussion board or by messaging your faculty.
- Each group member will start with a thorough appraisal of his/her chosen articles using the guidelines below. These will be posted early (see above due date) to ensure time for group collaboration to ensure that each articles is optimally appraised and ready for entry to the evidence table (see above due date).
Use the following guideline to appraise each article. Using this guideline provides for a more concise appraisal and your responses will align with what you need to enter into the Evidence Table on the next assignment. Refer to the critical appraisal tools in the module learning activities for more detail about appraising each type of research study. For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, also see the tips for appraisal below.
- Author(s)/Year-for the selected study
- Conceptual or theoretical framework or modelfor study. State the conceptual framework, theoretical basis, or model used to guide the study. If this is not identifiable, indicate ‘not applicable’ (N/A).
- Level &Design/Method/Purpose-BRIEFLY describe what was done in the study. Is this a qualitative or quantitative study? What is the research design? What is the level of evidence based on Melnyk’s heirarchy (don’t leave this out).
- Sample/Subject Characteristics & Setting-What is the sample/participant/study number? What are the characteristics of the population? What were the inclusion or exclusion criteria in brief? Was there attrition? If so, describe why and how many participants ‘dropped out’. Comment on bias as it relates to the study.
- Names and Definitions of MajorVariables: What are the study variables? List both independent and dependent variables. Be sure you know the difference.
- Outcome Measures-Comment on the measurement tools (instruments, surveys, lab tests/biophysical measures, scales, questionnaires) used in the research study. If these types of measures were used, comment on the validity and reliability of these measurement tools/tests.
- Data Analysis-Describe the data analysis. This includes statistical tests used (review descriptive and inferential statistical tests in the module materials) and other mechanisms of analyzing qualitative findings (e.g. extraction of themes).
- Findings-Report the main findings of the study as they apply to your PICOT/clinical question (i.e. narrow findings to those that are most helpful in ‘answering’ your clinical question). For every statistical test you have in the data analysis column, you should have a finding. For inferential statistical tests, report measures of statistical significance (i.e. in quantitative studies, give the exact p-values or odds ratios reported in the study). Comment on the validity (quantitative research) or credibility (qualitative research) of study results. Comment on the reliability of the study results.
- Limitations, Strengths, Weaknesses-Describe limitations, strengths, weaknesses of the study. The article may have a limitations section. Use this information but also consider how this research study adds to what you know about your clinical question.
- Other-Describe any unexpected or ‘untoward’ events that occurred during the study time period that may have affected results/outcomes. Describe how the findings/results fit with previous research in this area. This should be indicated in the discussion section of the article. Describe how the study/findings help to ‘answer’ your clinical question. Comment on the generalizability (quantitative research) or transferability (qualitative research) of the findings.
Tips for Appraising Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- These studies are the highest level of evidence and are complex.
- The studies themselves are the sample, not the individuals in the studies being analyzed.
- The inclusion/exclusion refers to the STUDIES chosen.
- The process/method is how the literature search for studies was performed.
- The data quality for these studies consists of what checks were made for bias and quality of studies.
- Findings may consist of themes that emerged from the review.
- A meta-analysis will take a systemic review a step further and calculate a statistic, usually an effect size, for the study results. This is what should be discussed in your critical appraisal/evidence table Data Analysis area.
- There is a good section in your text Chapter 5 as to how to critically appraise a systematic review/meta-analysis.
General Guidance for the Discussion Board.
- Provide peer feedback to your peers’ critical appraisal posts such as make comments, corrections, suggestions that are productive in improving the overall appraisal of the article. Comments such as ‘nice job’, ‘great work’, etc. are insufficient in reaching your end goal.
- The overarching goal is to work as a group to ensure that each article is critically appraised to the best of your ability as a group.
- All group members are expected to participate in a meaningful and useful way in the discussion.
- Be concise, clear, and avoid redundancies. Reading lengthy entries online is difficult and tedious and will make it very challenging for faculty to effectively grade your work.
- Your responses should be scholarly. Please follow the necessary rules of “Netiquette” demonstrating consideration of others’ opinions. No flaming (aggressive or inciting comments) or shouting (excessive use of capital letters). Remember, we can’t see your non-verbal behavior to verify your intent, so be sure your message conveys your ability to listen respectfully to others and comment assertively.
- Course faculty will be monitoring the discussion. Faculty may moderate, answer questions, and provide additional information if appropriate. Faculty roles include guide and facilitator more than answer-giver. Faculty members have the option of not posting to the discussion board.
References
Hu, F., & Cui, L. (2018). Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: A meta-analysis. Chronic Diseases And Translational Medicine, 4(4), 260-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2017.11.002
Did you know that effective analysis of concepts requires professionalism in handling academic research Papers? Do no compromise on your grade choose professional Research writers at elitetutorslab.com