CRITIQUE OF SYSTEMATIC RESEARCH REVIEW 7
Critiqueof Systematic Research Review
SRRis described as a summary of the collected evidence that uses athorough process of reviewing, recognizing and integrating studies toprovide a solution to several clinical questions and conclude withthe gathered information. SRR is used in evidence-based practice tolessen the prejudice from independent reviews. The paper will presentthe relevance of the problem, identify the evidence level, critiquethe severity of study and clarity in which the study is described.The paper will summarize and present the findings and conclusionbased on current and future health practice.
Relevanceof Nursing Research
Theclinical trials involve a massive level of best evidence. The logicbehind EBP presents a static snapshot of the conclusion based on theaggregated evidence to arrive at a decision. The nursing issue raisedin this article is significant and relevant in practice for severalreasons. In essence, the problem of has become an important subjectin clinical research and thus, there is a need for digging deeper therequirement and strategies of the issues presented in the article(Melnyk &Fineout-Overholt, 2011).
Forinstance, some researchers argue that obesity is derived from dietaryfactors. Nevertheless, it has not been easy to get the actual data ofthose who suffer from dietary factors and those with genetic obesity.Most of the genetic obesity cases, as expected, may be the ones outof control by other simpler methods of weight loss. Weight loss andobesity are significant topics of research aimed at developing theresearch problem in nursing context. Various preventable diseasesoriginate from the issue. Thus, learning to control the problem ofobesity equals to learning to treat, manage and control multipleinfections inherent in the modern world (Melnyk& Fineout-Overholt, 2011). Thus, the SSR questiondescribed is an urgent basis to open the criticality of thought amongresearchers in a nursing context.
Levelof Evidence of Studies in SRR
Theproblem of the research addressed in this systematic review is thecontribution of proof-based practices in nursing context. Thequestion of the research under assessment is relevant in the nursingfield in that it read out largely on the quality of care given tothese patients. The practice was put in place in nursing context asan advocated solution for the poor quality of the care in the healthfacilities and the larger society. In essence, it is the concernpresented to the patients that persuade the impact of the controlledmedication. Since the people`s health is of great significance to theworld, the importance of this research question is intriguing (Melnyk& Fineout-Overholt, 2011).
Inthe nursing context, the evidence-based practices describe the use ofthe viable option in the administration of the healthcare after acareful review of the evidence. The evidence is derived from vastlyreviewed researchers. Thus, the evidence that has been providedpresents optimal positive effect to the patient. The processes areinclusive of considerations of all the results derived fromadministration of the given practice after the evidence. For theevidence to be approved, it has to establish itself as the mostsignificant and beneficial of all the existing options. In essence,the evidence-based practice aims at making the objective of nursingto be centered in the most viable way possible (Melnyk& Fineout-Overholt, 2011).
Critiqueof the Clarity
Evidence-basedpractice is a topic of debate. Various people have differentarguments based on it. These cases use EBP in understanding thecourse of actions that can be included in nursing context limits thecapacities of nurse’s innovation. Evidence-based practice islimiting since it hinders the flexibility with which the nurses canget solutions based on what suits the best conditions. In essence,they have to stick to options based on approved evidence. While suchproof might be correct, it may not be the most viable one inparticular situations. Adjustment of the norms needs to be sometimesmade to achieve the desired results. With the evidence-basedpractice, the caregiver is done to believe that what he/she thinks isthe most viable option.
Thus,the evidence cannot be rightfully applied in their practice. In thispart of the quality of proof, the authors argue that they did nothave the capacity to access how well these studies are taken asevidence was modeled. In essence, this is the critical issue ofcredibility because it may show that the author was reliant onexternal sources of data without measuring the reliability inherentin the research. In the same regard, it may be seen as though theresearchers were concerned with just the relevance of the datapresented in the sources and not necessarily on the credibility. Ifthe credibility of the source taken as evidence was a viable concern,the model of the sources should have subsequently followed and reportSSR report. Therefore, it is not imperative to use articles whosedesign model is unclear in an academic setting. The researchers oughtto have demonstrated that the presented of information provided isgenuine and valid to be used in the evidence-based context ofnursing.
Theinformation that is described herein in the form of ratios andanother statistical design appears to be more precise that they arereported in prose form (Samelson, 2011). The studies illustrated inthe article have some clarity based on the correctness of theinformation documented and the mere fact that it is current. Theevidence explained- in the article is updated with the last data thatwas described was in 2013. Research that illustrate the informationin the form of tables, appear more truthful since it is in the shapeof a summary. In any case, the tables were never used as a source ofdata for the research reported in the article it would be moreexpounded than it is now.
OverallFindings of Studies as Summarized in SRR
Theshortcoming of the evidence is that there are no considerations ofthe probability of the outcome being distinct while under certainconditions. The shortcomings herein make the resulting evidence onlyfaithful to the ideals but not to the real patient. The use ofclinical guidelines in dictating the evidence that can be applicablein some cases may limit the creativity of the personnel involved. Inthe paragraph above, the limitation has been described. The use ofthe design controls that are not randomized crafts instances ofintentional prejudice on the side of those who carry out theexperiments. The bias may compromise the quality of the expectedoutcome leading to misguided practice.
Itcan be observed that the patient who seeks to lose weight through thesurgical methods lost the body weight faster than those who take thealternative means of weight loss. This assures that the procedures ofsurgery for weight loss is necessary for people with issues of losingweight through other ways (Melnyk& Fineout-Overholt, 2011). Nevertheless, the researchers reportedthat irrespective of the proven effectiveness of the surgicalmethods, still, many people have not embraced it as the viable meansof losing weight unless it is presented as an alternative means. Someindividuals fear the surgical procedures that may be derived frommedical errors. As a result, this may lead to grave issues in healthincluding death. Thus, based on the SSR findings as reported above,surgery is a viable means of reducing weight loss
Datasegmentation in a given array of studies assists in enhancing theclarity and preciseness of illustrated information. The underlyingreason is that the readers can access the information of interesteasily within the shortest period feasible. The researchers havedemonstrated this information in a sequential order. Thus, theinconsistency of the information presented in the study limits itsclarity. The discussion on surgical procedures as a way of reducingobesity is changed continuously. While justifications exist, itsvalidity is still in question. Moreover, the author`s credibility topresent the research in precise form is therefore in question
Despitethe benefits of the EBP in the nursing context, some issues need tobe resolved before it can be fully incorporated. The mere fact thatSSR gets the evidence to be used as the viable way is not necessarilytrue. The evidence presented herein is not flexible and thus is rigid(Melnyk& Fineout-Overholt, 2011).It makes it the viable way only in an optimum situation.Nevertheless, the only problem inherent with SSR is the source ofevidence used by authors. Some sources do not appear legitimateenough since the authors fail to mention their credibility andsuitability in the current study.
Melnyk,B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (Eds.). (2011). Evidence-basedpractice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice.Lippincott Williams & Wilkins