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 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).
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:
Indicate each physical modality treatment parameters and include supportive statements for your choice of these parameters.
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.
What treatment options should be discussed with the patient? Provide a rationale for each potential treatment and how each is thought to impact the disease processes.
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
Messina et al. (2009) study has utilized the literature reviews well and but failed to
The people in the studies must also be randomly assigned a "treatment" or a "placebo" (Kishita & Laidlaw, 2017, p.126) After these criteria were applied, the number of studies decreased to "15" (Kishita & Laidlaw, 2017, p.127). Information on "participants' age range and mean age, the type of treatment condition, the type of control condition, format of the therapy, the number of sessions, the primary outcome measure,the type of analyses, and means,standard deviations, and sample size for the primary outcome measure in each condition" was recorded for each study (Kishita & Laidlaw, 2017, p.127)
It is systematic review articles with very good organize studies. It contains homogenous group of patients. The strength of this study came from a random clinical trial and doubled blinded research
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.