Memantine Annotated Bibliography

Evaluating the eight papers for quality evidence was critical when selecting the two papers to utilise. The evidence hierarchy was considered, aiming to use the highest evidence possible, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and randomized, controlled, double-blind studies, to ensure the most accurate evidence informed the clinical decision for the patient (Bloom, Olinzock, Radjenoic & Trice, 2013). When sorting the results, other various factors were also taken into consideration; credibility, reputability, reasonability and support. With these factors taken into account, the two papers selected are highly esteemed in regards to evidence, and are most relevant to the patient (Stichler, 2010).

The table legend is not descriptive enough. Nothing regarding treatment strategy has been mentioned in the table, so why it has been described in the legend?

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 results of the study were not useful to the population over a months’ time but over the years the study many show signs of progress (Rolleri, Wilson, Paluzzi, and Sedivy, 2008).

2. What data and method does the author use to evaluate this intervention? Why was that data and method used?

The trial involved four different treatment levels, and patients were encouraged to enter the next level of treatment if they failed to achieve remission or response (50% reduction in symptoms) after a specified number of

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:

The use of this systematic approach allows the reader to quickly discard papers which do not meet inclusion criteria.

The problems with their work begins almost immediately in the initial literature review. The literature review is plagued by Ill-defined, or simply

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.

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.

A total of 200 patients enter this two-treatment parallel-design study. The probability (power) is 94 percent that the study will detect a treatment difference at a two-sided 0.05 significance level. Plan for data analysis:

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

must be used with therapy because it has been found that neither the drugs or therapy is enough by themselves.

following the FIT guidelines. The review also showed that the majority of study did not discuss the