A Study On A Computer Aided Search22 Of Medline

The Indicated Review had 80 studies involving 11,337 students (Weissberg, Taylor, Schellinger, Payton, Pachan, Dymicki and Durlak,

This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42017060339, and may be accessed online at

While this structure provides a starting point for the critique of evidence strength, the prudent evaluation and, subsequent, translation into practice guidelines requires further consideration (Greenhalgh, 2010). Research can be scrutinized into measures of quality. John Hopkins Hospital grades evidence on a high to low scale, A through C, based on criteria including consistency of results, reproducibility of findings, sample size of study, level of study control, organizational design, and expert opinion (Newhouse, Dearholt, Poe, Pugh, & White, 2005). Using this evaluation tool, an A score would result in a recommendation for clinical practice while a score of C should alert the clinician to a low quality of research and should not be incorporated into practice guidelines (Newhouse et al., 2005).

Please list the references and clinical resources that you use in your review of this document. These references should support any clinical or extensive revisions or additions that you make. Aside from known common best practices, references are required. We reserve the right to request additional references. References and resources used:

It synthesizes the results of various primary studies by using strategies that reduces biases and random errors. These reviews follow a strict scientific design and provide consistent estimates about the effects of interventions, therefore, conclusions are defensible. Systematic reviews shows where knowledge is lacking and can be used to guide future research. These reviews are usually carried out in the areas of clinical tests such as diagnostic, screening and prognostic; public health interventions; economic evaluations; adverse effects and how and why interventions work. Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews undertaken by Cochrane Collaboration members, aims to help people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare

The study was a systematic review of scientific papers selected by a search of the SciELO, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and LILACS-BIREME databases. Among the 2169 articles found, 12 studies proved relevant to the issue and presented an evidence strength rating of B. No publications rated evidence strength A. Seven of the studies analyzed were prospective cohorts and 5 were cross-sectional studies.

There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.

Those articles that I have read provided information on how exercises affect the body. Exercise can help the body, but it can also cause problems if you over exert yourself. Further study will show in more details how and why the recovery of the immune system after exercise is important. This will make a good research. This could help me a lot in my field because it will be exploring more articles that reference the recovery of the immune system after exercise. Even as a physical therapy, exercise will be involved. You will need to know how much exercise is enough for one day. I am very interested in the article and during further research because it can benefit me as well as others that do strenuous exercise and not realize the affect that it has on their immune system. This is something high school football players, basketball players, and anyone that over exert themselves while they

Looking for the articles, journals, and books are easy to find in the physical library where librarian helps, suggest and find material. Having the first time user experience of the online library was entirely different. For the database search, I went step by step. Firstly, I learned about scholarly journals, that they are academic, peer-reviewed or refereed. A group of researchers conducts the research, and their peers from similar expertise give them feedback before the publication.(Cornell University library, 2010). Secondly, I review the video to how to use the database search engine. I selected Nursing as a subject and chose CINAHL with full text for the article search (Walden University, 2013). I limited the search to peer-reviewed journals and

The topic in this systematic review is clearly defined in the abstract & the introduction. Yes, the search for studies and other evidence was comprehensive and unbiased as it was able to be. Strict criteria were followed as described in Figure 1.

This review was very detailed and informative but following the first study they provided other smaller studies which were helpful in backing up their results but it didn 't provide a clear understanding to the reader. It was a cluster of studies with no explanation just information thrown into paragraphs and broken into sections. It seemed to add details to the first study but in all each study provided was essential to support their hypothesis. Overall the article was very helpful in explaining and supporting their hypothesis. It also provided a recommendation section for what future studies should focus on that will help further the knowledge of which treatment is better and why.

Both clinicians who are enquiring clinical questions and researchers who are conducting in-depth searches for systematic reviews come across a few

Based off of the nine articles selected, this SRR is considered a level II study. Each was a randomized control trial (RCTs) and indicates strong and well-designed studies. A systematic review of randomized RCTs are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, are level one, and are considered the most rigorous (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Candidates were healthy

A total of 4219 studies were identified. After removal of duplicates and after exclusion criteria were applied, there were 13 studies to be included. All 13 were case series with controls.

There is sufficient evidence supporting the use of physical exercise as a central element of rehabilitation for many chronic diseases.1 The effectiveness of implementing an exercise program with cancer patients is widely researched. Many studies note that any form of exercise performed has a proven effect to improve both physical and psychological effects associated with patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy for their cancer diagnosis. However, treatment modalities for cancer produce a number of negative side effects in patients, preventing them from participating in an exercise routine. Some of these side effects include: increased fatigue, tiredness, pain, not enough time due to treatment schedule, decreased strength and energy, shortness of breath on exertion, decreased motivation, and decreased concentration.2 Due to these common side effects, most patients are unable to continue a previous exercise program or begin a new program, even though the benefits have been shown to reduce the severity of most side effects experienced.