A Research Article Assignment Module Paper

Critiquing Your Articles Assignment Module 2 Assignment 2

• Complete a review of the literature and select a minimum of 3 articles that are appropriate research articles related to your question. A research article may be quantitative, qualitative, or integrative. A research article may to related to a Quality Improvement study, an Evidence-Based Practice study, or a Research article that reports new knowledge.
• Critique each of the articles using the appropriate Appraisal Form below, either C, E, or F.
• If a question included in the form you selected is not applicable to your particular study, select option 3, Not Clear.
• An Integrative Review, Appraisal form C, can be used for a meta-analysis or systematic review.
• All Appraisals have room for comments as you go through the form. A final comment is required in the space provided at the end of each appraisal form. Even if you comment throughout the form, COMPLETE THE FINAL SECTION THAT SAYS “COMMENTS.”  A Research Article Assignment Module Paper

PLACE YOUR ORDER HERE NOW

Rubric for Appendix F
Rubric for Appendix F
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
Appendix C, E, or F Form Completion	100 to >80 pts Proficient Three appraisal forms have been submitted. They are completely filled out. All yes/no questions are answered, including citations, Comments, and open-ended questions are completed. The correct forms are used based on the type of article. If a question included in the form you selected is not applicable to your particular study, select option 3, Not Clear. 80 to >0 pts Competent At least two appraisal forms have been submitted. They are mostly filled out. All or most of the yes/no questions have been answered. Citations are included, Comments and open-ended questions are mostly filled out. The correct forms are used based on the type of article. If a question included in the form you selected is not applicable to your particular study, select option 3, Not Clear. 0 pts Novice Only 1 or no appraisal form has been submitted. The submission is partially filled out with yes/no questions and only one or two of the written comments/questions filled in. The correct form used based on the type of article.	/ 100 pts

Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Quantitative Review

Citation:

 Synopsis

What was the purpose of the study (research questions, purposes, and hypotheses)?

How was the sample obtained?

What inclusion or exclusion criteria were used?

Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data (demographic or clinical profile and dropout rate)?

What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence, timing, types of data, and measures)?

 

Was an    intervention tested?            Yes          No

 

1. How was the sample size determined?

 

 

2. Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups? What are the main findings?

 

Is the study published in a source that required peer review?  Yes   No   Not clear

Was the design used appropriate to the research question?  Yes   No   Not clear   *Did the data obtained and the analysis conducted answer the research question?  Yes   No   Not clear

Were the measuring instruments reliable and valid?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Was the study free of extraneous variables introduced by how, when, and where the study was done?  Yes   No   Not clear   *If an intervention was tested, answer the following five questions: 1.   Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before the intervention)?  Yes   No   Not clear   2.      Were the interventions well defined and consistently delivered?  Yes   No   Not clear   3.      Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in the interventions?  Yes   No   Not clear   4.     If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to detect a difference if one existed?  Yes   No   Not clear   5.     If a difference was found, are you confident it was due to the intervention?  Yes   No   Not clear   Are the findings consistent with findings of other studies?  Yes   No   Not clear   Are the findings credible?  Yes   No   Not clear   Clinical Significance Is the target population clearly described?  Yes   No   Not clear Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough for you to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as a basis for care?  Yes   No   Not clear Are the findings clinically significant?  Yes   No   Not clear Comments

Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Quantitative Review

Citation:

 Setoyama, A., Sawada, Y., Saito-Sasaki, N., Ohmori, S., Omoto, D., Yamamoto, K., Yoshioka, H., Okada, E. & Nakamura, M. (2021). Psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) is useful for the detection of psoriatic arthritis in the Japanese population. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 16146. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95620-4

Synopsis

What was the purpose of the study (research questions, purposes, and hypotheses)?

The study investigated the utility of a representative tool, the psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) questionnaire, to identify Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) among Japanese patients with psoriasis. The study proposes that the PEST questionnaire might be a useful tool for detecting PsA in the Japanese population. A Research Article Assignment Module Paper

How was the sample obtained?

The sample was obtained using convenience sampling. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis and PsA were confirmed by both dermatologists and rheumatologists based on the CASPAR criteria at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health from July 2017 to September 2020 were included in the study.

What inclusion or exclusion criteria were used?

The inclusion criteria included patients diagnosed with PsA and confirmed by both dermatologists and rheumatologists using the CASPAR criteria, as well as those who had sought healthcare services in the study institution.

PLACE YOUR ORDER

Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data (demographic or clinical profile and dropout rate)?

All 143 patients from the sample participated and contributed clinical and demographic data for the study. There was no dropout.

What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence, timing, types of data, and measures)?

The retrospective observational study was conducted at a single institution, collecting data from July 2017 to September 2020. The PEST questionnaire was administered at the first patient visit and during follow-ups. Data included demographic information, clinical history, PEST questionnaire scores, and laboratory results. The PEST questionnaire scores were used to identify PsA, with scores >3 indicating higher risk.

Was an    intervention tested?            Yes          No

 

1. How was the sample size determined?

The study enrolled 143 patients diagnosed with psoriasis, and the sample size reflected available cases within the study period rather than being predetermined.

 

2. Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups? What are the main findings?

No, patients were not randomly assigned. This study categorized patients based on the presence of PsA, determined by PEST scores and clinical assessments. The study found that the PEST questionnaire is effective in identifying PsA among Japanese patients with psoriasis, with high sensitivity (93.1%) and specificity (78.9%) for scores above 3.  A Research Article Assignment Module Paper

Is the study published in a source that required peer review?  Yes   No   Not clear

Was the design used appropriate to the research question?  Yes   No   Not clear   *Did the data obtained and the analysis conducted answer the research question?  Yes   No   Not clear

Were the measuring instruments reliable and valid?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Was the study free of extraneous variables introduced by how, when, and where the study was done?  Yes   No   Not clear   *If an intervention was tested, answer the following five questions: 1.   Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before the intervention)?  Yes   No   Not clear   2.      Were the interventions well-defined and consistently delivered?  Yes   No   Not clear   3.      Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in the interventions?  Yes   No   Not clear   4.     If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to detect a difference if one existed?  Yes   No   Not clear   5.     If a difference was found, are you confident it was due to the intervention?  Yes   No   Not clear   Are the findings consistent with findings of other studies?  Yes   No   Not clear   Are the findings credible?  Yes   No   Not clear   Clinical Significance Is the target population clearly described?  Yes   No   Not clear Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough for you to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as a basis for care?  Yes   No   Not clear Are the findings clinically significant?  Yes   No   Not clear Comments The study effectively demonstrates the PEST questionnaire’s high sensitivity and specificity in detecting PsA among Japanese psoriasis patients, addressing a key gap in PsA screening for Asian populations. Although its retrospective, single-institution design may limit generalizability, the thorough analysis supports its clinical relevance, making it valuable for a PICOT question on PsA screening effectiveness. A Research Article Assignment Module Paper