Compression Garments

Qualifications for best available research, consist of medical (health science) research, which reigns supreme because it most likely will yield accurate, unbiased and information, with multiple practice questions for specific patients and or patient groups. The research is large and effective in relation to prevalence, treatment, assessment, disorders and patient populations. The evidence should yield systematic

An annotated bibliography is a catalogue of citations to books, documents and articles with the purpose of the annotation being to inform the reader of the precision, relevance and quality of the sources cited (Davis, 2009). Evidence based practice enables health care professionals to effectively use current verification during the decision-making procedure (Sacket et al 2000). Healthcare professionals use a hierarchy of evidence as a guide to define the reliability and importance of the evidence based research; with the evidence that is founded further upon

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of a quantitative article using Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt’s (2015) rapid critical appraisal (RCA) for a randomized clinical trial. Topics included are the validity of the research, results of the research and how the information can be applied to the clinical care of my own patient population.

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).

The author considers the simplest way of finding out best practice is by using guidelines. According to Field & Lohr (1992) guidelines are “systematic developed statements to assist practitioners and patients decisions for specific clinical circumstances.” Evidence is always current and a generous collection of many different systematic research reviews with multiple random control trials are available (AGREE, 2000). These types of trials are graded at the top level of hierarchy (Guyatt et al 2002).Nevertheless in contrast Devereaux and Yusuf (2005) argue that top level hierarchy is not a guaranteed deviation from the truth in randomized trials. The clinical guidance used is the National Institute of Clinical Guidance (NICE 2009) is based in the author’s homeland and is an independent organisation responsible for providing guidelines. The ethos behind NICE (2009) is to promote and prevent poor health nationally involving the public, health professionals and patients in the process (NICE 2009).

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

1. Is the article proposing to answer a specific clinical question or questions? What are the questions?

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.

For the literature review an electronic search was undertaken of articles published in English using the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed and Cochrane databases from 2009 to 2013 were searched for medical subject heading terms, both individual terms and combination of the following

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

In the surveys and randomized controlled trials, validity, reliability and generalizability are three key factors.

From the 1035 articles, selected from 2001 to 2015, six articles were selected after excluding the relevant criteria’s and those were critically apprised and compared to get comprehensive results.

Inclusion criteria. Upon completion of the literature search and thorough examination of the abstracts, inclusion, and exclusion

This measure is a reliable indicator of trial quality and is based on each trial’s reporting and quality of randomisation and blinding attribution (CASP 2006).

Articles were excluded if there were: 1) Patients with metastases or history of cancer; 2) articles in non-English; 3) The study type of letters, case reports, editorials or reviews; 4) articles with incomplete raw data.