Article Analysis

This article analysis provides an overview of a study on the use of skin glue to reduce peripheral intravenous catheter failure. It discusses the research topic, design, sample, data collection, analysis, and results. The article also explores the relevance of the study to clinical nursing practice and suggests directions for future research.

Running head: ARTICLE ANALYSIS 1
Article analysis
Student’s Name
University

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 2
Introduction
The introduction of a study is supposed to give an overview of the study by stating the
research topic from a general and then narrowing down to the real issues being discussed. The
researchers were addressing the use of peripheral intravenous catheters in hospitals that was
reported at 80% and also observing that there is a failure in use occurring at a rate of 3% to 69%
(Bugden, Shean, Scott, Mihala, Clark, Johnstone & Rickard, 2016). These errors make skin glue
an important clinical tool since it plays a major role in reducing these errors from occurring.
From a general view, the researchers address the common knowledge that exists in the
industry and then in a specific view, the researcher address the issues of concern to the specific
area of study (Babbie, 2013). In this study, the general view is the premature failure of catheters
while in a specific view the research presents the use of skin glue as an intervention in specific
clinical settings. This is a clear background of the study that enables the reader to understand the
common knowledge in the field and then presents the research problem and its relevance to the
field of study.
Title and Abstract
According to Bhakar & Nathan, a good research topic should be clear and reflect the
overall goal of the research study. From the study, the authors have clearly presented the
research topic making it easy for the reader to identify the research problem. Howell (2103)
states that the role of the abstract is to summarize the whole study and present the keywords for
the study that make it easy for the reader to understand the research from the abstract without
even reading the whole task. From the title and the summary of the abstract, in Bugden, Shean,
Scott, Mihala, Clark, S., Johnstone, & Rickard (2016), we can easily identify the study objective,
methodology, results, and the conclusion.

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 3
Research Design
The study design of this study was a single-site, 2 arm, non-blinded randomized control
trial of superiority that sought to gather information on the topic. This type of studies is common
in medical settings like in the testing of new treatment option. Non-blinded controlled trials are
the best since they allow the patient to be aware of the study and the reasons why it is being
carried out (Hrobjartsson, Emanuelsson, Thomsen, Hilden, & Brorson, 2014). However, these
studies have been highly criticized since they are full of bias from both the patient and researcher
since when patients understand what is being done, then they will be more biased to the study
and thus reducing the validity of the responses. Blinded studies are the best since they allow the
patient and even the data collectors to be unaware of the study thus reducing bias and
manipulation of information in the study.
For example, this research design was used by Bugden, et al. (2016) for enrolling
participants in the study designed to evaluate the research problem in real life situations. This
study was done for five months where patients were being rapidly enrolled in the study.
Weathington, Cunningham, & Pittenger (2015) argue that the inclusion and exclusion criteria
for any study are used for determining its validity based on the respondents that will be used in
the study. Spieth, Penzlin, Illigens, Barlinn, & Siepmann (2016) adds that this is the reason why
most findings or these trials are used for evidence-based practices and even policy formulation.
Further Moller (2011) argues that such studies fail to fully generalize these findings
despite having higher internal validity. The fact that the recruit of participants is strict means that
there is a need to carry out a phase four study to ensure that the validity of the responses is
increased. This can end up affecting the reliability and validity of the study since the participants

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 4
who are recruited mat fail to meet the clinical requirements for the best results due to recruitment
factors.
The Sample
Purposive sampling was used for this study by only selecting the participants who met the
set criteria for the study. Screening of patients was based on only those who were eighteen years
and above and had been inserted with a peripheral catheter in the upper limb. Therefore, Palinkas
et al. (2015) suggest that the role of this type of sampling is to ensure that the researcher gets the
participants who meet the requirements of the study and thus no need for assessing the
participants again. This type of sample also increases the quality of the data collected by
ensuring that only the respondents with adequate qualifications to be included in the study are
used (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Jeanne, 2011). This is also good in controlled trials since it
ensures that the control group gets the right respondents to increase the validity of the study and
also all the participants of the study can be accounted for at the end of the research.
Data Collection
According to Macefield, Boulind, & Blazeby (2013), the biggest challenge in randomized
control trials is choosing the best outcome measure to suit the trial design and purpose. This
means that the researcher needs to understand the study hypothesis. This will lead to the best
reporting and measurements of the data in the study. The data for this study was collected
through clinical measurements that assessed how the development of the condition was changing
as time went on. According to Prayle, Hurley, & Smyth (2012), this method is good for
randomized controlled trials since it makes it easy for the researcher to assess the patients'
response to medication as the study is carried out. Thus by capturing the real measures of

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 5
progress at each stage, the researcher is able to assess the effectiveness of the intervention in the
control group as the study continues to be done.
The primary outcome measure of the study was peripheral intravenous catheter failure at
48 hours. This defined as a composite of one or more infection that the patients displayed after
48 hours. Thus the presence of infections like occlusion, phlebitis or dislodgment was an
indicator that the device had failed. Further, clinical definitions that are related and consistent
with other studies like infection, clinical compression or pus at the peripheral intravenous
catheter site were used as measures for the study. Peter Markus Spieth, Penzlin, Illigens, Barlinn,
& Siepmann (2016) add that randomized controlled trials rely heavily on how the data was
measured during the control period since the whole study is based on the changes in the control
group that form the conclusion for the study. Thus by striving to ensure that the sample group
data is documented well, the researchers were ensuring that all the data from the study is
adequately collected and used for the study.
Data Analysis
Since the data for this study was quantitative, it was entered in a tablet and exported to
Stata for analysis. The unit for measuring this study was the peripheral intravenous catheter
device with time unit intervention used to measure and asses how the patient reported the
outcomes of the intervention. Per patient, analysis was also done to ensure that data accuracy
was increased for all patients with multiple devices (Macefield, Boulind, & Blazeby, 2013).
Through cleaning and remodeling the data collected using quantitative methods, variables were
used to reflect the findings of the study and the relevance of the intervention in the control group
of the study.
Results

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 6
The results section of the study is used to present the actual findings of the study to
reflect the data gathered by the researchers from the study. From the study, device failure was
reported at 17% in the number of patients with the skin glue while the same was 27% for patients
in the standard care group. The secondary outcome of device failure was less by 7% due to
dislodgement, on the other hand, the skin group was at 14%. The level of significance for this
study was presented as is p=0.02 which falls within the required level of p<0.05 (Bugden, et al.,
2016). These variables show that the study was significantly high and thus its validity is also
high. According to Marcatto, Rolison, & Ferrante (2013), the results section of any study needs
to be statistically presented in a way that is easy for the reader to understand and also makes
them reliable. By indicating that there were positive results on the control group, due to the
exposure to skin glue, then the study supports the research problem with the per-patient analysis
that reveals similarity in the results in both primary and secondary outcomes.
Conclusion
Colquitt & George (2011) argue that the role of any conclusion is to summarise the
findings and offer the direction for the study. In the use of skin glue, peripheral intravenous
catheter failure can be reduced in adults. This is based on the data analysis that indicated the
importance of the use of skin glue in patients. The fact that the study reported a 10% reduction in
device failure in all patients where skin glue was used means that this method of intervention is
the best and offers better clinical outcomes. Further, Smeulers, Onderwater, Zwieten, &
Vermeulen (2014) suggest that a good research study needs to offer recommendations for future
research and also present limitations that were encountered. Thus the Bugden, et al. (2016)
clearly indicated the direction for future research and how such limitations can be addressed in

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 7
the future. The limitations formed the recommendations for future research by identifying ways
through which the study can be improved in future research for the industry.
Relevance to clinical nursing practice
In the grand challenge approach, a good research study is supposed to have implications
for future research by offering direction on the areas that need to be addressed by future
researchers. In all studies, the findings of the study are based on a sampled population which is
used to represent the whole population. This study was the first study that was done on the use of
skin glue and thus its findings from the baseline on which future studies will be based on. Thus
the fact that the study reported significant reduction in the failure rates of the use of catheters,
then it means that the findings of this study offer future direction for nursing where the skin glue
needs to be included on clinical interventions. Grimaldi, et al. (2015) suggests that good studies
offer relevance to existing knowledge and ensure that the findings can be replicated in the field
of practice. This study is relevant to the current study since it proposes new ways for addressing
catheter failure through the use of skin glue.
Further, directions for future research are based on improving the current knowledge by
refining the research that has been done by other studies by building on the gaps and the
limitations that they had to increase the knowledge in the field. The findings of this study can
form the direction for future research on how effectively skin glue can be applied in clinical
settings. Marshall (2013) argues that the role of any research study is to offer knowledge to the
existing ones or offer directions for future research by identifying the gaps that have not been
addressed in the discipline. This means that the relevance of skin glue and the side effects need
to be identified so that mechanisms can be developed to determine its application in clinical
settings.

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 8
In addition to that, studies need to be replicated to other studies that exist and the fact that
this study is the first one on sin glue means that there is the need for adequate research on the
topic, its limitations and even directions for future research. This means that the findings of this
study have not been validated and call for the need to ensure that other researchers carry out
similar studies to ensure that these findings can be validated and applied to the general discipline
of study. Validation of study findings ensures that they are assessed to determine whether they
are fit to be generalized to the whole profession by analyzing the findings that have been
presented (Bhakar & Nathani, 2015). There is also be need to carry out similar research with a
larger sample of the study to ensure that the findings of this study are adequately validated and
applied in the field of study. This will ensure that the findings of this study are replicated in other
studies so that they can be validated. A study can only be regarded as adding weight to the
existing studies if it supports or it is supported by other similar studies.

ARTICLE ANALYSIS 9
References
Bhakar, S. S., & Nathani, N. (2015). A Handbook on writing Research Paper in Social. New
Delhi: Bharti Publications.
Bugden, S., Shean, K., Scott, M., Mihala, G., Clark, S., Johnstone, C., & Rickard, C. (2016).
Skin glue reduces the failure rate of emergency department-inserted peripheral
intravenous catheters: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine,
68(2), 196-201. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.11.026.
Colquitt, J., & George, G. (2011). From the editor publishing in amj—Part 1: Topic Choice.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 432-435.
Grimaldi, L., Cuomo, R., Brandi, C., Botteri, G., Nisi, G., & D’aniello, C. (2015). Octyl-2-
cyanoacrylate Adhesive for Skin Closure: Eight Years Experience. Vivo, 29, 145-148.
Howell, K. E. (2013). Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology. London: Sage Publishers.
Hróbjartsson, A., Emanuelsson, F., Thomsen, A. S., Hilden, J., & Brorson, S. (2014). Bias due to
lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing
patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. International Journal of Epidemology, 43(4),
1272–1283.
Macefield, R. C., Boulind, C. E., & Blazeby, J. M. (2013). Selecting and measuring optimal
outcomes for randomised controlled trials in surgery. Langenbecks Archives Surgery,
399(3), 263-272.
Marcatto, F., Rolison, J. J., & Ferrante, D. (2013). Communicating clinical trial outcomes:
Effects of presentation. Judgment and Decision Makingmethod on physicians’
evaluations of new treatments, 8(1), 29-33.
Marshall, G. (2013). Skin glues for wound closure. Australian Prescriber, 36(2), 49-51.

ARTICLE ANALYSIS
10
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).
Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533-544.
Prayle, A., Hurley, M., & Smyth, A. (2012). Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical
trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. Biomedical Journal, 344.
Spieth, P.M, Penzlin, A. I., Illigens, B. M.-W., Barlinn, K., & Siepmann, T. (2016). Randomized
controlled trials – a matter of design. Neuropsychiatr Disease and Treatment, 12, 1341-
1349.
Weathington, B., Cunningham, C., & Pittenger, D. (2015). Research Methods for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences (4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.