Demographic Characteristics Of The Trials

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.

The panel of health care experts tasked with formulating these guidelines included masters and Ph.D. prepared nurses, public health physicians, along with family practice physicians and public health researchers. The guidelines were created after the panel reviewed published research and evidence-based studies on the topic using rigorous evaluation, standardization, and inclusion criteria. Tables provided easily understood visuals on how recommendations were ranked and corresponded with the quality of the evidence reviewed. These easy to read tables allowed the reader to identify the strength of the recommendations as well as the level of evidence supporting each recommendation. Considerations as stated previously included not only the efficacy of the treatment but the cost and ease of implementation across the identified

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).

3) Compared two drugs of interest. 4) Have similar groups, allocation concealment, baseline validity and reliability of measures in order to eliminate bias of studies 5) Have low risk of bias. 6) Patients that receive medication treatment within twelve months after diagnosis. The strength of evidence was graded as high, moderate, low or insufficient based on established guidelines on four criteria: a) Risk of bias b) Consistency c) Directness d) Precision

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.

The first step in the analysis was to categorize each patient by whether or not they passed the clinical threshold during their treatment and if their change was reliable. Clinical cutoff scores and Reliable Change Indexes (RCI) for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were obtained from past research [@Delgadillo2012; @Griffiths2015; @Kroenke2001; @Spitzer2006]. Clinical cutoff scores for the BASE-6 were obtained from unpublished pilot research and corresponded to the clinical cutoff of the commonly used OQ-45 measure.

The lesson and case studies presented for evaluation was a great learning exercise. A better understanding of how to interpret data was gained. Also, weighing the clinical significance versus the statistical significance to show relevance is invaluable. All research is not quality research and one must be equipped to recognize bias, threats to validity and proper population representation. Moreover, critiquing the credibility of a study is essential to the health care advances.

The study was a double blind, placebo-controlled study performed between October 2002 and November 2003. The study was conducted in 53 centers throughout the United States, Mexico, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, South Africa, and Israel. There were a total of 360 patients initially screened, however only 278 patients were included in the randomization process. The reaming 82 patients

In this article Munro, Watson, and McFadyen, (2006) conduct a controlled trial in which assesses the significance of the training personnel who work directly with people who possess mental health and substance e abuse problems receive. The sample was administered in a NHS mental health service and incorporated a sample size of 49 (27.8%) mental health nurses, either in adult generic mental health or addictions services, out of 176 nurses who were initially invited to take the survey. 24 of the nurses were assigned to the experimental group (receiving training) and the rest (25) of the nurses were sent to the control group (receiving no training). Data was retrieved at three different times using surveys. The first survey was taken before training , training would last for 4 days, and then the latter two surveys were allotted following right after and then again 6 months later.

This study was designed as a descriptive case series as it follows the progress of ten participants undergoing the same treatment with no control group. As this is a

Each patient was subjected to four assessments. Assessment s were given at the screening, at baseline after randomization at the end of the 12 weeks treatment and size months after the end of therapy in order to evaluate the long-term effects of the treatment. Patients in the wait-list group were offered one additional assessment at the end of the 12-week waiting period. The patients were assessed by independent and trained clinicians who that had no knowledge to the treatment conditions, and who was not involved in direct clinical care of any of the

Limitation of the study: Based on Magalhaes et al. (2012), accuracy in detecting the illness was not identified, the perpetual utilization of the heterogeneous therapeutic regimen. An active control study was included in the meta- analysis study, and there is no inactive treatment performed.

1. With regard to the first review, methods section, comment 4; authors should have explained why they choose duration of 3 months for treatment. The explanations for this comment are not convincing and are suitable for comment 5 of methods section. Please pay attention to what has been asked (duration of treatment not the evaluation times).

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).