Study Analysis

Research Question

1.Did the study have a research question?

In the Bellinegeti et al, study,(2016), the research paper does not utilise research question in the application of hypothesise don’t allow the usage of two parameters testing one factor. Research questions sets out the answer and the methodology in use depends heavily on the tools used to conduct the study. Research questions may be used to answer both quantitative study and qualitative measurements. The research questions can be used in both studies. However in this research, the parameters for deciding the usage of hypothesis is met in that, the following questions are used as a gauge; is the study quantitative? Yes, does the study undertake experimental approach? Yes, is there any prediction on the phenomenon? Yes. Considering this all answers are positive hence research questions are not proposed in the study, (Farrugia et al., 2010).

2.Is a study aim or hypothesis stated?

In the Bellingeri i et al, study,(2016),  aim of study stated  (pp 162-paragraph 8), is to assess the clinical efficacy of PP solution versus NS solution, assessing inflammatory signs and wound size in patients with pressure ulcers. The study hypothesis in this case has been stated as a an aim, but in research aims statement can serve as research hypothesis.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

3.If yes, does the aim or hypothesis directly relate to the research question

The relationship is significant when the study gives the concluding remarks regarding the assignment in general. There is a relationship built between the aim and the research question under study however it is not direct as it be indicted but whee interpreted critically brings out the meaning.

1.Does it present relevant literature in relation to the problem/issue to be studied?

In the Bellingeri i et al, study,(2016),  literature review aims at exploring what other authors and scholars have researched on the research topic. It offers current knowledge with substantive information, and theoretical methodology of other scholars relevant to the topic. Literature reviews have been utilised, however some of the literature were too old as per the year of study of the research, some of the literature are sourced as previous as 1998, and yet the study was conducted and publishes in 2016, 18 years back.

2.Does it use a critical approach in reviewing relevant literature (ie: does it demonstrate comparing and contrasting of information)?

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), it  uses three comparative analogy process in accessing  the literature review, good literature review compares and contrast and provides evaluations of major theories and concepts in the scholarly literature. Ti does the function of comparing and contrasting the arguments and methodologies. The study asses and examines what other researchers in the field have talked about the issue. The critical assessments of the subject matter  and ist practical use for several years illustrates the depth of knowledge that is available for that field y the researcher, (Aweyard, 2014).

Background/Literature Review

3.Does it identify any gaps in the literature?  

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), (pp 162-paragraph 7),  the research has gone all the way in providing how wound healing has been done and documented in research. It has widely and exonerative explained the studies and experiments done on the study topic. It finally narrows down on the issue under consideration that is the study of wound healing using PP and NS solutions have been established and published, thus as a solution to these the study is doing research t fill the gap available through conducting an experimental study .

4.Does it provide a sound justification for doing the study?

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016) the literature don’t provide sound justification of  the research in that, the literature suggests that these studies have been  awhile back, like the statement where the literature say that a ‘number of authors have investigated the clinical efficacy of PP solution in the management of

chronic wounds. Moeller et al’’ while the study objective above aims at comparing the two solutions for determining its efficacy that is PP and NS solutions for chronic wound management

1.Is there a statement regarding ethics approval?  

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), (pp 163-paragraph 1), the  ‘ethics approval’ has been clearly stated as a way  of conforming with the ethics guidelines , it allows the patients to signed informed consent as to allow them to go on with the study, the following statement has been used in the study; approved by the

2.Is there a statement regarding informed consent?  

There is  statement as to pertaining informed consent in  the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), (pp 163-paragraph 1, ‘ethics’  statement is stated as below; patients  signed  an  informed  consent  form before starting the study,……..

According to Hardicare, (2014), valid informed consent t allows for the user to have full permission of the rights in the research for the samples and respondents.

3.What are the other relevant ethical issues addressed?  

Other relevant ethical issues were factors such as privacy issue

This was illustrated with the study, ( Bellingeri et al, 2016) using a third party research centre to conceal envelopes of the research and to ensure that privacy of the clients is guaranteed, as they are synonymous.

Each individual patient was opening their individual forms for privacy concerns, (Wilcoxon et al., 2013).

4.List any other relevant ethical tissues you think as important

Study Design

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), ethical issues relevant include the principle of no harm, the research procedure should not offer any harm to the participants in the study.

Another ethical issue is respect for anonymity and confidentiality regarding the patient diseases tae as patient information are important and should be kept private.

5.Explain why the above 4 ethical aspects are important

Norms or ethical aspects of the research are important in the first, they promote the aims of research in that promotes the culture of truth, knowledge and avoidance of error, second is that it involves great deal of co-operation among the differ stakeholders in different disciplines and promote ethical standards to be used, third is that it helps to ensure that researchers are held accountable for this tasks and fourth is that it promotes moral and social values such as aspects of human rights, animal warfare, compliance with the law, public health safety an and social care.

1.What was the chosen design for this study, (Bellingeri et al, 2016),

This is a study that the investigator or the researcher but not the participants of the study know the treatment allocation give. In clinical filed it refers to experiment which the researcher knows what the subjects are receiving but the participants are not aware.

In this study patients were randomly assigned the two groups with treatment with the PP solutions or NS solutions which the researcher was privy to.

2.Is this choice suitable for answering the research question?

The study choice was relevant in that the researcher wanted to assess the efficacy of both medical therapies, thus it was important for knowing in order to assess the efficacy level , in precision, the study design was concise to the relevant aim of the study.

1.How many participants were involved in the study?

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), (pp 164 paragraph 6), it  used 289 sample sizes of the patients who had similar composition in terms of clinical status, compositions and wound characteristics. Sample size determination in RCT has effects on the reliability of the study findings. If small effect is applied on the treatment, then the number in either groups can wart rejection of null hypothesis.

2.Was this an adequate number?

The smaller size of the sample participants have an effect on the reliability of the results obtained. Failure to reject the null hypothesis shows that their no affect on the treatment in the tests. An increase in the sample size increases the effect on the RCT, event when small effect is desired, (Glennesrtser et al., 2013). Inadequate data in research can affect the general ability of the study findings to the general population.

Intervention

3.Were the targeted participants appropriate?

The more the data used in the research the less the biasness it can cause in the RCT, in the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), (pp 164 paragraph 8),   targeted respondents were effectively included and those who did not  meet the criteria were excluded effectively for the purpose of analysis which is uniform. The target participants were significant of the disease they were suffering from and the appropriate treatment test treatment they were to receive, (Reyes et al., 2016).

4.Were the participants adequately described (ie: background information)

Randomization of the groups is effective for analysing the different groups. The extent of the analysis is relevant. The participant’s description was met in that they portrayed similar characteristics and this for the purpose of homogeneity of the results so as to establish actually the effect of the treatment given, (Begg et al., 1996)

1.What was the intervention implemented?

The intervention implemented in the study was that the two treatments in the study were treated with either PP solution or the NS . While the wounds were accessed through a standard tool for Assesment. The treatment was applied to both the groups both control and treatment groups for comparison for he results to be easier and difference and similarity to be observed.

2.What was the comparison implemented?

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), the comparison was implemented in that both groups were given same treatment and the difference observed, however from the study it was found out that there was no significant changes upon the treatment of both groups in study. The comparison indicator was the pain score associated with the wound and its dressing

3.Was this intervention adequately described so it could be replicated in practice?

The intervention was adequately described in that the standards tools of measure used were appropriate and followed the standard procedure. The application of the intervention was applied effectively to the groups with a standard procedure that can be replicated in other settings of study. The use of BWAT for pain assessments is a standard tool which can be implemented effectively for use in other settings, (McCloskey et al., 2014).

1.Outline the types of methods/measurements used to gather data (information) in this study (hint: different methods/measurements might be used to collect different information)

The different methods utilised by Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), (pp 163-paragraph 9), include the use of clinical data signs in the scientific literature. Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool (BWAT) tool was used t assed the pain of the patients, the tool acted like a modified Likert scale which asses different parameters in the study.

Methods /Data Collection

Pain was further assessed using the visual analogue scale, (VAS), measurement of wound size was facilitated by the use of sterile rulers, pictures were taken as observatory tools

2.Were these methods/measurements validated?

Validity involves the use of instruments for measuring the intended purposes, validation contents include content related, constructs related and criterion related. Validity measures establish the relationship that is present in the logical sequence of the relationship. ,

3.Why is validity important in quantitative research?

Validity are important in the sense that it involves the examining the logical relationships that are present across the measurement protocols, (Burgoon & Hale et al.,1987)

1.State the statistical tests that were used to analyse the data in this study:

Statistical tests used in this research, ( Bellingeri et al., 2016), (pp 165-paragraph 1,2,3),  are the two tailed t-test statistical parameters used to measure used for measuring the group. This aspect is used to measure deviations from the estimated parameter. I measure how the two test measures from the groups.

2.Were these tests clearly described?

3.What was the level of significance (p value) identified in this research study?

4.How does the above help with interpreting the study findings?

When there no significant relationship between the groups then we reject the null hypothesis.

1.What were the main findings of this study?

Bellingeri et al., (2016) study,it showed a higher efficacy on the PP solution versus the NS, in reducing the inflammatory signs. Thus the findings showed statistically no relationship between Treatment 0 and Treatment 4 and that pain assessments did not show any significant difference in between the two groups.

2.Are the research findings presented in a way that is consistent with quantitative research?

Research findings in quantitative research and especially the randomised control trials are used. Cross tabulation of finding shave been found to be used to examine the difference in the results between the two groups. In making such measurement care needs to observe such as making small difference which may be attributed to sampling error.

1.What were the limitations of this study? (limitations identified by the authors and students are both acceptable)

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), the observed limitation was the duration it used to observe the difference. The measure meant tools focused on the pain through aids of the tools instead of checking the actual rate of healing. The author thus acknowledges and recommends that longer observation methods be used to compare the different methods.

Data Analysis

The study nature did not allow for the measurement using double blinded method because of the nature of the experiment used.

Another limitation for the method is the gender bias, it can work for or against the patients, however it does not raise concern in that it has have little effect on the study..

2.Explain why they are limitations of the study?

Limitations in the study, (Bellingeri et al, 2016) are those factors which the researcher cannot exclusively control thus affect your study, whoever they can affect the results of the study

1.Briefly discuss the implications of these findings for Nursing/Midwifery practice and/or patient care. Include a discussion about generalisability of the findings.

The implications of these findings, (Bellingeri et al, 2016) re that it will lead to shift in medical practice informing the use of PP solutions in the management of chronic pain. These results can be applied to the general public and used to other settings which might be helpful. The results can be generalised in other setting and yield the same results more precisely/

2.Overall, should the outcomes of this study be used to inform clinical practice?

In the Bellingeri et al, study, (2016), the outcomes should be used to inform the clinical acre practice, in that the randomised control design used followed the right protocol and procedures of doing research thus meeting the basic standards of research practice.

References

1.Aveyard, H., 2014. Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

2.Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., Pitkin, R., Rennie, D., Schulz, K.F., Simel, D. and Stroup, D.F., 1996. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. Jama, 276(8), pp.637-639.

3.Bellingeri, A., Falciani, F., Traspedini, P., Moscatelli, A., Russo, A., Tino, G., Chiari, P. and Peghetti, A., 2016. Effect of a wound cleansing solution on wound bed preparation and inflammation in chronic wounds: a single-blind RCT. J Wound Care, 25(3), p.160.

4.Burgoon, J.K. and Hale, J.L., 1987. Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communications Monographs, 54(1), pp.19-41.

5.Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. 2010. Research questions, hypotheses and objectives. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 53(4), 278–281.

6.Glennerster, Rachel; Kudzai Takavarash 201). Running randomized evaluations: a practical guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691159249.

7.Hardicare , J 2014. Valid iknformed consent in research an itntroductio’, british Journal of nursing , Vol 23 no. 23 no. 11 pp 564-567

8.McCloskey, L.W., Kelley, K.M. and Phillips, D.R., Emc Corporation, 2014. Method of guaranteeing replication of data written by a mainframe to a virtual tape. U.S. Patent 8,793,452.

9.Reyes, C., Pottegård, A., Schwarz, P., Javaid, M.K., Van Staa, T.P., Cooper, C., Diez-Perez, A., Abrahamsen, B. and Prieto-Alhambra, D., 2016. Real-Life and RCT Participants: Alendronate Users Versus FITs’ Trial Eligibility Criterion. Calcified tissue international, 99(3), pp.243-249.  Assessing The Quality Of Quantitative Research Discussion Paper