Posted: May 23rd, 2015

research critical appraisal

student will be asked to provide critical appraisal of the assigned article that i have attached. The critical appraisal will be specific to research designs and data analysis procedure. the assignment is expected that be completed according to the critical appraisal checklist that I have attached.
you may choose to complete this assignment by simply answering the list of questions/items in the checklist or use the checklist as a guideline for an essay formatted appraisal.Also you should do the case control calculations and cohort study calculations.
i have chosen 6 pages because there is no specific page number, it depends on answering the chicklist, if you need more more pages let me know.

ORDER AND REVISION MESSAGES STARTING FROM THE EARLIEST TO THE LATEST

dear writer,
i have attached a pdf. file \”checklist\” that have RCT study calculation.
sorry i forgot to attached it bcz i have ordered 3 same assignments with different articles.
the calculations that you have done one of them is for case control studies not for RCT.

CONTENT: the first paragraph has many sentences that should not be in this paragraph because it is in other

paragraphs.

in p.4 line 15 what is 4 d? that you mentioned.

p 5 did the study collect the data from  all the patients. no missing data ?

p 6: you use many sentences in generalization of the study  what do you mean no details.

GRAMMAR: there are many mistakes for example: page 3 line 11 the paper should the secondary (should what ?)

in p.4 line 8: with ease?

p.5 line 2-3 you use long sentence and you over use word \”since\”.

p.5 line 5: nixed you mean mixed.

in p 6 second paragraph: the study results give……. is a fragment no meaning as well as line 17 the sentence the

paper supports……

p. 6 line 19-20: giving the credibility…… sentence problem.

INSTRUCTIONS NOT FOLLOWED: you need to expalin and critique all the checklist

â?¢Introduction

oDid the authors make the case for the significance and relevance of the study?

â?¢Why was study undertaken

â?¢Importance of subject/ relevance

â?¢Is it worth the trouble?

â?¢Originality

â?¢Was the study or its idea original enough? Does it contribute to better understanding of what we already know or do

not know?

â?¢Purposes and Hypotheses:

o Are they meaningful and measurable (Feasibility)

o Primary versus secondary? If so, how proper was the use of secondary purposes?

â?¢Methods

â?¢Are there competing designs? If so, was the one used the optimal one?

o Sample and setting

â?¢Response rate; response rate should be mentioned where appropriate

â?¢Attrition? If applicable

â?¢Appropriate for the study objectives and design

â?¢Generalizability – should be representative of population

â?¢If controls are used? Was the use appropriate?

o analysis and Results

â?¢Are statistical analysis procedures appropriate considering the level of measurement of study variables, objectives,

and design

â?¢Discussion

oCritical evaluation/appraisal of the results in light of existing literature

oProper recommendations made

oProper conclusions made – consistent with results of study?

oWere generalizations appropriate

oWere limitations acknowledged

oConclusion

â?¢General factors

oTitle author, journal, institute – may give you some idea of how relevant study is

oWriting style – paper should be easy to read and understand

oReferences – these should be appropriate and up to date

oWas conflict of interest declared?

Sincerely,

dear writer:
i have sent this massage to the support team:
dear support,
could you please find a researcher who understand the unique characteristic
of randomized controlled trial who is able to critique the article that i
have attached instead of only answer the checklist by saying yes/no,
good/bad.
who can write an easy follow paper style.
who can critique the important issues around sampling bias in selection of
cases, randomized controlled trial -rational interpretations of the main
principle of randomized controlled trial design .
who can clearly critique the article without misconceptions that confuse
the reader and the RCT design.
for your information i got the feedback for order number 2546023 from my
professor and i failed i did not pass the expected score;therefore, this
paper should be satisfied in order to pass this course.
i hope you understand my situation and deal with it by finding the correct
writer who is familiar and well understand research designs so he can
critique the article and gives details and rational interpretations.
thanks
i wish you are qualified and well understand research designs specially in this case you will critique a randomized control trial study, if so go a head and start working in the papers if not please ask the support team to find another writer.
i have attache a folder with papers have done and i want you to carefully follow that papers in how have done in details and explanation and rational interpretations as well as following all the points of the checklist and calculations.
please read carefully the article that you will critique and critique it. it is not a perfect study there are many points to critique.and focus in the main issues in the article particularly sampling, bias in selection of cases, RCT rational interpretation of the main principles of RCT design.
in this paper you have to include all the calculations that i have attached previously.
feel free to ask and make me updated. please spend much time doing the papers appropriately and professionally so we don\’t spend more time in revision.
thanks

Here are comments for revision:

\”CONTENT: the content of the paper is not satisfied.
you have mentioned case study and the study is not a case control study it is randomized control trial and have
mentioned that before you start writing the papers.
you did not critique the article as you suppose to.
focus on the main point such as sampling, bias in selection principles of randomized control trial.
the papers have misconceptions that reflect confusion.
may repetition and no need sentences.

FORMAT: the running head should be only in the first page.

GRAMMAR: the study has been done by many authors not only one as you state.

the study was done so all the sentences should be in the past tens.

fragment sentences.

INSTRUCTIONS NOT FOLLOWED: first: you did not include the calculations in the papers

you should calculate 3 schedules attached previously. one of them with the checklist papers and the others in 2 separate

files.

second: you missed many points in the checklist forms and you answered some of them by yes/no, you should explain and

give details from the article.

please please i have attached a file called paper model to follow and you did not.

i have give a details for the instruction to follow below: please read carefully and follow what i need:

P 1:

line 1 : could you please include subtitle for each paragraph the first one should be \”introduction\”

the study done by many authors not only one, write the authors names as APA format with the year of publication.

1st sentence is not clear. the study is randomized control trial not (case control).

the first sentence should answer this  question from the checklist

-Did the authors make the case for the significance and relevance of the study? and then explain the other points in

details:

-Why was study undertaken (purposes)

-Importance of subject/ relevance

-Is it worth the trouble? why and how

in the 2nd paragraph:

no need for the information from literature (according to the national ���

-Originality:

-Was the study or its idea original enough? Does it contribute to better understanding of what we already know or do not

know?  how, explain that don\’t only answer the question

-Previous work in the area

-Did the author(s) identify gaps, inconsistencies, or methodological issues with existing literature. explain give

details what the literature found.

â?¢    -Purposes and Hypotheses:

â?¢    -Are they clearly described? what are the purpose and the hypotheses the hypotheses was mentioned

â?¢    -Are they meaningful and measurable (Feasibility), how they are meaningful and  through which calculations they are

measurable

â?¢    -Primary versus secondary? If so, how proper was the use of secondary purposes?  what is the secondary purpose and

how proper  was the use of secondary purposes explain.

â?¢    -Methods

â?¢    -Design: the study design is randomized control trial (double blind, placebo-controled trial) not (case control)

explain how they conduct this study, rearrange the sentences and make them clear.

â?¢    -Was the design clearly stated?

â?¢    -Was the stated design appropriate for the outlined objectives and type of data?

â?¢    -Are there competing designs? If so, was the one used the optimal one?

â?¢    -Variable Definitions

â?¢    -Were important variables conceptually and operationally defined? explain the sample and the operational and

conceptional definitions for each group separately

â?¢    mention the clinical measurements and if they defined or not.

â?¢    was conceptual definition for both dependent and independent variables  identified?

â?¢    i could not find the information that the patients reviewed through phoneâ?¦.. no need for this info. delete all

the sentences you have wrote.

â?¢    -Are outcome measures consistent with the stated aims/objectives and study design? what is the outcome measures?

and then explain how it consistent with the objectives and the authors examined the outcome measures?

â?¢    -Were operational definitions convincing?

â?¢    -Was validity and reliability â?? if applicable â?? reported?

â?¢    -Was the reporting of validity and reliability of measures appropriate and sufficient?

â?¢    -Sample and setting: all this part has to be deleted and replaced by all the information below with explanation and

details with rational interpretation, include

â?¢    -Were sampling procedures well described? explain the procedure, and from where the sample was collected (all the

three  groups) what is the population of the sample , the follow up data ,

â?¢    -Was the sampling approach convincing?

â?¢    -Properly calculated and reported to avoid type I or II error

â?¢    -Free from bias

â?¢    -Response rate; response rate should be mentioned where appropriate

â?¢    -Attrition? If applicable

â?¢    -Inclusion versus exclusion criteria â?? clear and appropriate?

â?¢    -Setting well described mention the setting

â?¢    -Appropriate for the study objectives and design

â?¢    -Generalizability – should be representative of population explain, why?

â?¢    If controls are used? Was the use appropriate?

â?¢    -Data Collection

â?¢    mention the size for analyzed data and from where they selected  (placebo, chlorhexidine, chlorhexidinecolistine)

table 1

â?¢    -Bias? is there is any bias in the sampling, flow up data, discontinuing study,

â?¢    -If used control, were conditions equal?  the study did not use control group

â?¢    -If experimental â?? were conditions of randomization met (e.g., random assignment, blinding, concealment, etc..)

â?¢    -Were ethics procedures properly followed?  is discontinuing the study in those patient ethical ?

â?¢    -analysis and Results

â?¢    -Are statistical analysis procedures appropriate considering the level of measurement of study variables,

objectives, and design, (what is the statistical analysis procedure been used?) check the papers model that i have

attached

â?¢    -Are the results clearly presented

â?¢    -Are the results properly interpreted

â?¢    -Were analysis procedures comprehensive in accounting for possible confounding variables?

â?¢    -Discussion (what is the conclusion of the study)

â?¢    -Critical evaluation/appraisal of the results in light of existing literature (what the literature say) details

â?¢    -Proper recommendations made (did the authors articulate the recommendations for future research what are the

recommendations

â?¢    -Proper conclusions made – consistent with results of study?

â?¢    -Were generalizations appropriate

â?¢    -Were limitations acknowledged( what are the limitations more than the case design and what are the solutions ?  if

the design is a limitation why do you mentioned in methodology part is clear ?

â?¢    -Conclusion

-General factors

-Title, author, journal, institute – may give you some idea of how relevant study is

write the title, and the authors or the main author, the name of the journal

-Writing style – paper should be easy to read and understand

-References – these should be appropriate and up to date

-Was conflict of interest declared?\”

Best regards,

DEAR WRITER:
HAVE YOU DONE THE PAPER? PLEASE CONSIDER ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS AND REVISION REQUEST POINTS AND FINNISH THE PAPER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I HAVE TO REVIEW IT AND REQUEST A REVISION IF THERE ARE ANY POINTS TO BE CONSIDER AND SUBMIT THE PAPER.
THANKS

Dear Customer,
I have changed the paper from present to past tense. please let me know if it is satisfactory

Here are comments for revision:

\”

CONTENT: you did not follow the revision instructions. what is the problem with you writers?

you did not include the calculations and i have asked for that many times.

you have not edit many point.

FORMAT: mistakes as apa format it should be Koeman et al. (2006) not as you wrote.

GRAMMAR: should be in past tense.

many grammatical mistakes

INSTRUCTIONS NOT FOLLOWED: you did not follow the revision instructions. what is the problem with you writers?

where are the calculations???????????

as apa format it should be Koeman et al. (2006) not as you wrote.

it is not only CHX it is CHX OR CHX/COL.

the sentences should be in past tens and some sentences mentioned (author)while they are authors.

all (case study) phrase should deleted because it is not a case control study it is randomized  control trial.

no need for the sentence (they sought to gain an insight into how the infection causes social and physical damage.

you did not follow the checklist. read the checklist and the paper model i have attached. give details and explain for

each part.

Did the authors make the case for the significance and relevance of the study?

Why was study undertaken? what are the purposes

Importance of subject/ relevance? it is important and why?

Is it worth the trouble?

Originality

Was the study or its idea original enough? Does it contribute to better understanding of what we already know or do not

know? details

Previous work in the area

Did the author(s) identify gaps, inconsistencies, or methodological issues with existing literature in this part  write

about the literature findings.

â?¢    Purposes and Hypotheses:

â?¢    the authors mentioned the hypothesis

â?¢    Are they clearly described. mention the purposes in clear way as mentioned the article.

â?¢    Are they meaningful and measurable (Feasibility)

â?¢    Primary versus secondary? If so, how proper was the use of secondary purposes?

â?¢    Methods:

â?¢    participants were assigned in 3 groups

â?¢    placebo, CHX and CHX/COL. mention that, there were no control group.

â?¢    Was the stated design appropriate for the outlined objectives and type of data?

â?¢    Are there competing designs? If so, was the one used the optimal one?

â?¢    Variable Definitions

â?¢    Were important variables conceptually and operationally defined? each one separately

â?¢    i have never found that the participants reviewed by phone. where is that stated in which part?

â?¢    Are outcome measures consistent with the stated aims/objectives and study design? what are the outcome measures?

â?¢    Were operational definitions convincing?

â?¢

â?¢    Was the reporting of validity and reliability of measures appropriate and sufficient?

â?¢    Sample and setting:

â?¢    Attrition? If applicable

â?¢    Inclusion versus exclusion criteria â?? clear and appropriate?

â?¢    Setting well described , what is the setting ?

â?¢    Appropriate for the study objectives and design

â?¢    Generalizability – should be representative of population, why?

â?¢    Data Collection: write from where the data were collected (patients number, from where the data collected)

â?¢    Bias?

â?¢    If experimental â?? were conditions of randomization met (e.g., random assignment, blinding, concealment, etc..)

â?¢    Were ethics procedures properly followed? also mentioned that the hospitals also have to be approved the study

protocol by the institutional review board.

â?¢    analysis and Results

â?¢    Are statistical analysis procedures appropriate considering the level of measurement of study variables,

objectives, and design, what the different types of measures have been used? more than one

â?¢    Were analysis procedures comprehensive in accounting for possible confounding variables?

â?¢    Discussion

o    Critical evaluation/appraisal of the results in light of existing literature

o    Proper recommendations made: is there any recommendation for future reseach

o    Proper conclusions made – consistent with results of study?

o    Were generalizations appropriate

o    Were limitations acknowledged , there are more than this limitation mentioned in the study

â?¢    Conclusion , make it clear as mentioned in the article with statistical findings

General factors (you did not change anything in this part as i asked)

Title ,author, journal, institute – may give you some idea of how relevant study is, please write the title , the name

of the journal and how relevant is that

o    Writing style – paper should be easy to read and understand

o    References – these should be appropriate and up to date