Qualitative Research Papers

The author of the article is Walsh, Timothy who has an MD a graduate of Princeton University and of Harvard Medical School. The article was originally published at an organizational site called the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1998. The web site was last update on February 24, 2016. The information on the article seems accurate and reliable although sometimes on organizational sites the information is biased toward the

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 et al. (2006).

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.

Summarize the topic and research problem to illustrate the significance of the clinical problem (2-3 sentences)

As a single descriptive study, this research study stands at the lower end of the continuum regarding strength of research evidence, however, this does not deem the findings useless. Although, the findings observed may not be immediately applied to clinical procedures and interventions it still brings light to a phenomenon within clinical practice. According to Grove et al. (2015) “descriptive studies often provide initial knowledge, which serves as a basis for generating quasi-experimental and outcomes studies” (p. 25). With the new insight gained through the study, future studies could be done to see if this finding could be manipulated and replicated to produce stronger

The search terms I used to locate this study were “academic performance” and “high school athletes.” I found the study in the SPORTDiscus with Full Text database. There were several reasons why I chose this study to analyze over other studies identified in the search results. The main reason I chose this study was because its research question most directly addressed my research topic. The other aspects of the study that made it seem worth investigating were that it was peer reviewed, it was published within the last year, and it examined students within the United States. Many of the other studies in the search results analyzed student samples from other countries; but in order to maintain consistency and keep my research topic somewhat narrow, I want to only look at studies that investigate athletics in secondary education in the United States.

The TMDEOhio Focus Group will serve as an opportunity to bring a carefully selected segment of the target audience together for an interactive and spontaneous discussion about traumatic life events. Group face-to-face interviews will provide an opportunity to visualize members of our target audience’s body language, facial expressions and tone of voice when sharing personal life experiences in a group setting.

Based off of the nine articles selected, this SRR is considered a level II study. Each was a randomized control trial (RCTs) and indicates strong and well-designed studies. A systematic review of randomized RCTs are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, are level one, and are considered the most rigorous (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015). Candidates were healthy

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

Higgins & Green in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions described systematic review as a summary result of “available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Judgments may be made about the evidence and inform recommendations for healthcare” (Higgins & Green, 2011). Systematic review is now replacing traditional narrative reviews as a way of summarizing research evidence. As Ralf W. Schlosser noted systematic reviews is replacing traditional narrative reviews because it “aim to minimize bias in locating, selecting, coding, and aggregating individual studies. This rigor in minimizing bias is what makes these reviews

After reviewing many studies, the five most relevant were: two studies (Cahill, Stamilio, Odibo, Peipert, Ratcliffe, Stevens, Sammel, & Macones, (2006);

The research is partitioned into sections; the objectives, design, background, participating individuals, basic results and a conclusion. The abstract part is very essential for quick reviewers that have restricted time to go through the whole proposal (Al-Mufti, McCarthy & Fisk, 1997). However, it may be the requisite for expert reviewers to allow them make decisions on whether to accept or ignore the research. Below the abstract is the introduction part that is essential as it is responsible for the definition of the question to be answered and provides the reasons as to why it needs to be answered. The introduction was brief was never portioned and provided the question in research as well as the answer to the question raised (Viktrup, 2002). The researchers stipulated that despite proving from research indicating the effectiveness of the conservative treatment to the condition; there have not been any studies on the prevention measures before its symptoms become

Evidence papers were evaluated by using the CASP tool, which systematically evaluates clinical research papers (Stevens,

“Statements that include recommendations, intended to optimise patient care, that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harm of alternative care options”(5,6)