Assessing The Quality Of Quantitative Research (Research Paper Sample)

Research
Assignment 1: Assessing the quality of QUANTITATIVE research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Name:
Student ID:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where there is a Yes/no option, choose the appropriate response
Study Question/Aim/Hypothesis
Did the study have a research question?
Yes/no
Explain : The research question for this study is not directly stated but it is made clear that the research intended to determine which treatment between prophylbetaine-polihexamidine (PP) with normal saline (NS) solution has higher clinical efficacy in wound bed preparation (WBP) for patients with vascular leg ulcers and pressure ulcers (Bellingeri, 2016, paragraph 9, p.162).
Is a study aim or hypothesis stated?
Yes/no
Explain what it is: The aim of the research was to assess the clinical efficacy of PP solution with that of NS solution in WBP through assessement of the signs of inflammation and the size of the wound in patients with vascular leg ulcers and pressure ulcers (Paragraph 9, p162).
If yes, does the aim or hypothesis directly relate to the research question
Yes/no
Explain: The aim of the research is directly related to the research question in that the research aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy of PP versus NS. This was achieved by assessing the wound size and signs of inflamation of patients with pressure ulcers and vascular leg ulcers after either being treated with NS or PP.Background/Literature Review
Does it present relevant literature in relation to the problem/issue to be studied?
Yes/no
Explain: The literature provided is relevant to the issue being studied as it explores the efficacy of NS, PP, and other surfactants in promoting wood healing. The efficacy of these substances is assessed in interms of their ability to eliminate bioburden, remove biofilm, and quicken wound healing (paragraph 4, p.160).
Does it use a critical approach in reviewing relevant literature (ie: does it demonstrate comparing
and contrasting of information)?
Yes/no
Explain: Literature review included the findings of several studies that compared the efficacy of PP versus NS. However, all the studies reviewed indicated that PP has higher efficacy than NS in the removal of biofilms, bioburden including Meticilin resistant staphylococcus (MRSA), in promoting wound healing (Paragraph 4-6, p.162).
Does it identify any gaps in the literature?
Yes/no
Explain: All the studies presented in the literature review provide similar results. The results of all the studies reviewed indicate that the clinical efficacy of PP is higher than that of NS in the treatment of chronic wounds in patients with pressure ulcers and vascular leg ulcers (Paragraph 4-6, p.162).
Does it provide a sound justification for doing the study?
Yes/no
Explain: The conduction of this research is justified because althought previous studies have indicated that PP solution has higher efficacy than NS in promoting wound healing, there is not randomised controlled trial (RCT) that has ever been carried out to compare the efficacy of PP and NS in WBP of chronic wounds (Paragraph 9, p.162).Ethics
Is there a statement regarding ethics approval?
Yes/no
Explain: The informed consent form that was signed by patients was first approved by the clinical reserch ethics committee of each of the six hospitals that were included in this research. The consent form complied with the Helsinki declarartion (Paragraph 3, p.163). This was important to ensure justice, beneficience, respect, and resrch merit and integrity are considered (Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), 2007, p. 12).This is a requirement for research studies involving human subjects.
Is there a statement regarding informed consent?
Yes/no
Explain: All the patients who were participating in this study were given informd consent form to fill. This is important as it informs the participant about the aim of the study and any risk that may be involved in the research. The consent form should be approved by ethic board in the hospital to ensure that it complies with the Helsinki declaration (Paragraph 3, p.163).
What are the other relevant ethical issues addressed?
Explain: Other ethical isues adressed during this reserch included making sure that all participants were subjected to treatment Paragraph 6, p163). This is important as no patient should be denied necessary treatment in the research.
List any other relevant ethical issues you think as important
Explain: Researchers conducting clinical studies involving human should ensure that the risks involved in the research are minimised or managed appropriately. They should also ensure that the resesrch does not cause any harm or discomfort to the participants. It is also important to ensure that the health information of the participant is kept confidential (Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), 2007, p. 27).
Explain why the above 4 ethical aspects are important
Explain: The ethical issues discussed above are important as they ensure that no reserch subject is forced to participate in the study by force. They also help in eliminating maltreatment of research subjects by exposing them to unecessary suffering or any kind of harm during the research process. They also help in protecting patient information form being accessed by unauthorized person (Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), 2007, p. 28).Study Design
What was the chosen design for this study?
Explain: The research design for this study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). It was single blinded where those administering the treatments were let to know the kind of treatment they were administering to each participant but those assessing the wounds were blinded such that they did not know which treatment was given to the patient. The study was stratified by the type of woods with the patient (Paragraph 10, p.162).
Is this choice suitable for answering the research question?
Yes/no
Explain: The use of randomized controlled trial research design was important in that it allowed the researchers to make causal inferences through provision of strong empirical evidence of the efficacy of NS and PP. By randomizing the participants to the control and treatment groups and blinding their allocation to those assessing the wounds helped in preventing bias in allocaton and reading assessing the efficacy of treatments and also minimised the effect of confounding variables (Rubin, 2007, p 23).Sample
How many participants were involved in the study?
Explain: The number of participants who were involved in analysis were 289 where 143 were assigned to the PP treatment group and 146 to NS control group. Two in the PP treatment group were losts during followup reducing the number in PP group to 141. 6 participants in NS group were lost during follo up and one died reducing the number to 139. However, the data for 289 paticipant was analyzed including the one that had been collected from the lost and deceesed one (paragraph 12, p.163).
Was this an adequate number?
Yes/no
Explain: The number of participants in this sudy was adequate to compare the efficacy of PP versus NS. This is because the number was large enough to allow for the generalization of the results obtained to the general populpation.
Were the targeted participants appropriate?
Yes/no
Explain: The targeted participants were appropriate because they all had chronic ulcers including pressure ulcers category II or III and vascular leg ulcers with lession and Braden score of 10 or more. It was also ensured that all participants had not been subjected to other treatments which would have affected the results of the study. Participants were hospitalized at home, inpatients or outpatients to ensure that enough wound care was given to them and that it was easy to follow up and obtain results reg...