The Journal Of Comprehensive Medical Research

Day 2 (OB) – Vaginal Birth and preparation for birth. Hanging Pitocin, and Lactated Ringers, and being able to watch an epidural insertion.

First off, the purpose. The purpose is similar to that of The Postgraduate Medical Journal; this journal is compacted full of 14 articles relating to surgical procedures, public health, pediatrics and therapy. Again, majority of the articles found within the journal contain sophisticated titles that display their specificity in that certain field: “Case 3-2017: A 62-Year-Old Man with Cardiac Sarcoidosis and New Diplopia and Weakness” and “Bezlotoxumab -- A New Agent for Clostridium difficile

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 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.

Anne Worrall-Davies* Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School Of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK David Cottrell School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

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.

Research in the medical field is an ongoing pursuit that is expanding our understanding of the human body and those things that plague it. Scientific inquiry should hold no personal gain, but rather provide safe and empirical data on which to base the decisions

After the initial search, about 35 journal readings had to be read thoroughly and closely analyzed. From which, 10 of these journal articles were deemed pertinent to this manuscript. These publications were then saved, printed, and re-analyzed for key information. All publications were chosen from reputable sources via online and only pertinent information relating to this manuscript will be discussed.

Parameters of this review include literature researched has not considered remote geographical areas such as developing countries, only western based, English research has been evaluated. This is a nurse focused review so literature involves nursing input. Search engines used were google scholar, science direct, The BMJ, PubMed and ProQuest. Literature used does not date past 2004, except for one from 1999 which is proving a

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. If your edits are based on your own clinical experience or opinion, please indicate this. References and resources used:

A total of 4219 studies were identified. After removal of duplicates and after exclusion criteria were applied, there were 13 studies to be included. All 13 were case series with controls.

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

" New England Journal of Medicine. N.p., 17 May 1990. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.

A healthy male volunteered to participate in the study. His age was 24 years old, height 180cm, weight 66.4kg, body mass index (BMI) 20.5kg/m2 and VO2max 57.7mLkg-1min-1. Participant was required to complete medical-history questionnaires. Participate had moderate levels of physical activity. Participant gave his written informed consent.

In one review study, the researchers point out that most clinical studies at present time, focus mostly on the identification of OIH and trying to find its clinical relevance; they also point out that there are a few studies emerging that discuss prevalence in populations and methods to treat OIH. The review also goes on to reveal that one of the reasons that OIH is not recognized more is because there is no true method to assess it, therefore it makes it difficult to diagnose (Arout, Edens, Petrakis, & Sofuoglu, 2015). Woodward and colleagues present many different methods that have been proposed to manage OIH, but there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to declare the best method; these researchers also discuss the fact that there have