Memantine Annotated Bibliography

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

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 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?

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:

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

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).

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

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.

652). This study is only a building block to understanding why treatment results vary from one culture to the next.

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

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

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: