Appraisal: How to Identify High Quality Paper
Appraisal Assignment Instructions
All published (or unpublished) is not created equal. Simply because a study has been published doesnâ€™t mean the study is of high quality. As practitioners it is important that clinical recommendation be based on quality research evidence. The goal of this assignment is to use a quality assessment tools to appraise the quality of a study, with specific emphasis on the studyâ€™s internal validity.
Search a resource database (e.g., PubMed) using your approved PICO question along with the associated search terms. Be sure to combine terms using the appropriate Boleen operators. Select a published study that is a systematic review (with or without a meta-analysis), RCT, cohort, or case-control study that provides evidence for or against the use of the intervention/comparator within your approved PICO question. The selected article must have been published within the last 5 years. Appraise the quality of the selected study using one of the provided appraisal tools. The selected appraisal tool must be appropriate for the study design of the chosen study. Students are required to use the appraisal tools provided. The assignment consists of two parts. For the first part requires the student to create a 150 to 200-word abstract, summarizing the purpose of the study, research methodology, and level of evidence provided by the selected study. The abstract is submitted as a Word document separate form part II of the assignment. The 150-word abstract must use the format below. This format is required.
PURPOSE: Provide the purpose statement or objective of the study as indicated by the study author(s). METHODS: Provide a brief summary that includes the study design, sample population, experimental procedures, main outcome measure(s), and the statistic used for the primary analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Indicate if the appraised article provided level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 evidence.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if diuretics are more effective than ACE inhibitor in reducing high blood pressure in females with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: 100 females (age, 57.21Â±8.38 yrs.; height, 158.84Â±7.14 cm; mass, 61.14Â±18.31 kg) were recruited for this study. The participants were randomly assigned to either treatment group A or treatment group B. Treatment group A received 500 mg/day of thiazide diuretic for 2 months, while treatment group B received 20 mg/day of benazepril for 2 months. The main outcome measure was blood systolic pressure (mm Hg) measured before and after the 2-month intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1
The second part of the quality appraisal template is a quality assessment checklist. The quality of the study will be assessed using the following scale and scoring criteria:
â€¢ Good – high quality (++): The majority of criteria met. There is minimal or no risk of bias. The results or study outcomes are unlikely to be changed by further research.
â€¢ Fair – Acceptable quality (+): Most of the criteria were met. There are some flaws in the study with an associated risk of bias. The study results or outcomes may change in the light of further studies.
â€¢ Poor – low quality (-): Either most criteria not met, or significant flaws relating to key aspects of study design. Conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies.
Note, once the assignment is submitted the student will be required to use the appraised study in their critically appraised topic assignment. Students are also required to submit the full study as portable digital document (PDF) file with the submission of the quality appraisal template.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.