Borderline Personality Disorder with co-occurring substance use disorder Molly M. Heller University of Minnesota Abstract Borderline personality disorder is a personality disorder that has just recently become recognized. Borderline disorder is characterized by impulsive actions, instability in daily life and relationships, and negative self-image. Other signs and symptoms of the disorder
Cullen and Gendreau compare and contrast the many studies on this subject, the meta-analyses conclusions, their strengths, weaknesses, inconsistencies, and the trends that follow the studies
2. Methods 2.1 Registration This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42017060339, and may be accessed online at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42017060339. The current review was managed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and established guidelines for narrative synthesis by Popay
Systematic reviews allow researchers to to determine the best research evidence to address a health care situation. In disease management and casemanagement specialities, the clincial guidelines for managing chronic health conditions are developed from Systemic reviews ( Groves, et al., 2013). Meta- analysis involves the use of results from previous studies; it involves quasi-experimental and experimental studies and stastical analysis are applied to provide the most desired evidence for an intervention, whiles Meta synthesis uses qualitative studies which main focus is interpretation of a specific study for use as evidenced research (Groves, et al., 2013). Lasty, mixed methods systematic review involves the utilization of independent studies which are conducted through narrative and invloves both quantitative and qualitative methods(Groves, et al.,
Intervention Studies on Forgiveness Daulphinia Glover Liberty University Summary In the journal article titled “Intervention Studies on Forgiveness” by Thomas W. Baskin and Robert D. Enright is a meta-analysis study on interventions that are conducted to determine if the
As with any other process, meta-analysis has several disadvantages or weaknesses. It’s been argued, for example, that one of the weaknesses of meta-analysis is associated with the fact that it requires a great amount of effort and expertise, and that currently there is a major drawback in the research community of those who conduct them (Berkeljon & Baldwin, 2009). Lipsey & Wilson (2001) also argued that meta-analysis often ‘loses’ a lot of valuable qualitative data (for example, the social context of the study) because it aggregates only quantitative data. It is further argued that the exclusion of such data may sometimes interfere with the process of arriving at the right conclusion (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Other authors also argue that meta-analysis includes a mix of different studies in a single review which could be very problematic (Berkeljon & Baldwin, 2009). For example, Glass, McGraw & Smith (1981) referred to this as the “apples and oranges” problem, arguing that different treatments and measures are given the same weight, when, in fact, they are not always the same. This, Glass, McGraw, and Smith claimed, can result in a misrepresentation of the measures used in each study, as well as their level of contribution to the review, which would skew the results. Lastly, the weaknesses of meta-analysis have been noted by others to stem from the fact that if poor quality studies or
A meta-analysis of seven different studies, an experimental study, a quasi-experimental study, and two non-experimental studies were used in this research process. The meta-analysis provided level one strength evidence and was of good quality for scientific evidence. The experimental study presented level one strength evidence and was also of good quality for scientific evidence. The quasi-experimental study had level two strength evidence and provided high-quality scientific evidence. Both of the non-experimental studies provided level three strength evidence and high-quality scientific evidence.
schools in five school districts across four states, using a quasi-experimental design to collect 1 data and a meta-analytic framework to synthesize results across sites. This study found that the
Syllabus: Section 2: Annotated Bib (You will repeat this section three times, once for each reference). Search the pool of evidence. Look for evidence in critically appraised resources. Select three references that most clearly address the question you have posed. These must all be primary resources. List each reference at the top of a page. Immediately below the citation: (1) Identify the type of research design the reference is (i.e., systematic review or meta-analysis, evidence guideline, evidence summary, randomized case study, primary clinical research critique, review of literature, case report, case series, or a critical appraisal of an article or primary research). (one sentence). (2) Keep in mind levels of evidence and determine what level of evidence the resource is. To identify
Studies without any weak ratings in any of its six components are classified as strong. If there is one weak rating, it is rated as moderate and if there are two or more weak ratings, weak. Quality assessment of studies included was conducted independently by two authors (GF and JF) using the above-described tool. Any disagreements were resolved via discussion and consensus between them.
The first section in the methods section describes the protocol to be followed. In order to find appropriate studies for the meta-analysis, Taylor and Swerdfeger, examined articles from Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Google Scholar using the guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Analysis (PRISMA) and independently assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Eslick then reviewed the articles. Following this, Taylor manually extracted the study design, the country of completion, sample sizes, interventions, outcome measures, and measures of effect from the articles. All literature had to be published and there was no language restriction on the studies,
An explanation of use of correlation studies in meta-analysis explains that often by doing so is to create conservative estimates or a down ward bias. This means that statistics presented in this meta-analysis may actually be higher than actual calculations prove.
The authors’ main argument is that the information bone turnover rates offer, which are determined by the measurement of carbon-14 content of collagen in bones, is beneficial for forensic dating and archaeological science applications. The authors also mention that the manner in which stable isotope values from collagen are interpreted
Synthesis of External Evidence After reviewing many studies, the five most relevant were: two studies (Cahill, Stamilio, Odibo, Peipert, Ratcliffe, Stevens, Sammel, & Macones, (2006);
It does not appear within the context of the study that the literature review has bias or undue influence on the findings but rather to support their validity as the method of the study and findings of this study are presented from a different perspective. However to maintain a balanced perspective we should consider the reasons that to date only one previous study has been a