Article Appraisal

Running head: ARTICLE APPRAISAL
1
Article Appraisal
University
Date

ARTICLE APPRAISAL
2
Article Appraisal
Introduction
Tayyib & Coyer (2016) have adequately introduced the research topic by presenting basic
information on the topic. The role of an introduction in research is to provide preliminary
background information so that the research can be put in context. This implies that the
introduction clarifies the study, points out the value of the research by looking at gaps that exist
in the field of study and the same time allowing the reader to understand the research aims and
objectives (Sudheesh, Duggappa, & Nethra, 2016). By presenting the background information on
the topic well, the authors have clearly defined the value of the research by suggesting that the
information from this study will be used as a reference for caregivers and professionals in
clinical care.
The focus of this study was based on previous research studies that had been done on the
topic with a single prevention strategy for pressure ulcers. The population under study was adult
patients who had been admitted inwards or care facilities. For a study to be effective, the
researcher must identify a population niche or cohort that meets the requirements of the topic.
According to Martínez-Mesa, González-Chica, Duquia, Bonamigo, & Bastos (2016) suggests
that in research, the appropriateness of the study population is related to the effectiveness of the
sample and the results of the study. This means that the researcher needs to pick a population
sample that reflects the needs of the study. This study was based on research articles that meet
the requirements of adult population patients. Thus the appropriateness of the study was based on
the researchers picking the right articles for use in the systematic review.
Literature search/ review

ARTICLE APPRAISAL
3
From the study, the type of papers to be used in the study were defined by the researchers
under the exclusion and inclusion criteria. This implies that the level of research papers that were
used had to be high to increase the effectiveness of the data. A good research is supposed to be
built on an evidence-based approach and the use of the first level of evidence that is based on any
study that used randomized control trials with proper randomization (Burns, Rohrich, & Kevin
C. Chung, 2012). The best level of evidence in systematic reviews is the use of randomized
controlled trials due to the validity of their results. The researchers used these type of papers
since they reflect the highest level through the use of control groups to measure the differences in
the research findings.
This study employed the use of a systematic review which is purely based on the
collection of secondary data, appraisal of research articles and synthesizing the findings. The
study employed a three-step strategy to identify secondary data for the study. All three entailed a
database search to identify the relevant data for the study. Since randomized control trials offer
the highest levels of evidence, the design was specifically designed to capture data for
randomized controlled trials for pressure ulcer prevention in adults. Further, the ease of search is
supposed to be based on the use of the right databases to increase the effectiveness of the
findings (Marx, Milley, Cantor, Ackerman, & Hammerschlag, 2013). The articles used in this
study were based on MEDLINE (PubMed) and CINAHL for published articles and use of
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), New York Academy of Medicine Library
Gray Literature Report, Google, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and National Guideline Clearing House.
Quality of the review

ARTICLE APPRAISAL
4
Did the authors assess the quality/rigor of the including/ excluding studies?
In systematic reviews, the exclusion/inclusion criteria play a critical role in determining
the appropriate articles to be sued in the study. The review considered studies with the outcome
measure of the adverse effects caused by the use of preventive strategy. To determine the quality
of the retrieved data, the articles were assessed using standardized critical appraisal instruments
from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument
(JBI-MAStARI). Munn, Tufanaru, & Aromataris (2014), this tool has been widely used in the
assessment of articles for systematic reviews since it is standardized with an assessment checklist
for study bias so that any disagreements between reviewers can be sorted out. For a study to
qualify for acceptance under the JBI-MAStARI tool it must meet a 50% score. This tool is the
best since it allows reviewer bias to be assessed which increases the reliability of the chosen
article.
Data synthesis
The nature of the studies used was heterogeneous thus making it difficult for statistical
pooling which forced the researchers to present the findings in a narrative form. Majority of the
studies used were randomized controlled trials and thus from the use of the JBI-MAStARI tool,
only 24 studies had sufficient quality for use. The advantage of systematic reviews lies not in the
number of studies used but rather in the type of evidence that is used (Ahn & Kang, 2018). This
implies that only evidence that is relevant to the research topic and meets the criteria of the
analysis tool can be used. Further, there are different methods for data analysis depending on the
heterogeneity of the evidence used in the study. This study data was analyzed through a
qualitative review since the research outcomes of the different studies could not be combined.