Topic of research: Meta-analysis of the association between preoperativeanaemia and mortality after surgery
Overview:
It remains uncertain whether anaemia is an independent risk factor for a poor postoperative outcome or a marker of the severity of the co-morbid disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies were therefore performed to examine the associations between preoperative anaemia and mortality following surgery. This meta-analysis hypothesised that preoperative anaemia is associated with an increased risk of death after surgery. Therefore, this review is novel as it investigates the association of preoperative anaemia and mortality within cardiac surgeries and non-cardiac surgeries(organ transplantation and spinal). Besides that, it also focuses on both short-term mortality(30 days) and long-term mortality(more than 90 days).
Discussion Requirement (1700 words)
BMC Central referencing style
This section provides the opportunity to `make sense’ of your data in relation to previous research and your specific research question(s). The discussion is an important to section which allows you to demonstrate to the reader/marker that you can interpret the results correctly and that you understand the research undertaken.
The discussion section that allows you to put your work into a wider context; a description of each table and graph, which you included in the results section, is unlikely to be sufficient for a pass grade. You must attempt to synthesize your results 32 and relate them to previous work – if the research was worth reviewing in the introduction, it is worth mentioning it again with respect to your findings.
Begin the discussion with a summary of the major findings (in relation to the aims of the study). Then proceed to explain systematically individual findings and support your discussion with relevant literature.
In general, you should endeavour to determine whether the results:
• answer your research question
• are consistent with what other researchers have found in this area. If they differ, why might this be so?
• are likely to be due to any methodological shortcomings or flaws in the study.
• have implications or applications for existing and/or future research.
You should write in an appropriately succinct style; this may be the section that lets you down. If you have relied too much on published work for the introduction, you may find it difficult to maintain the same style. You should aim to relate the findings of your study to most, if not all, the research evaluated in the introduction.
If you have followed the ‘hour-glass’ model of report writing, you will recall that the introduction became increasingly focused and ended with the hypotheses. The discussion should show a reversal of this pattern and begin with a statement emphasizing the primary findings of your study and whether or not the hypotheses were supported. The discussion should then become broader as these findings are discussed in relation to research that was reviewed in the introduction. Secondary findings (if appropriate) should also be discussed in a similar manner. Do not worry if your findings are not consistent with those published previously. It is more important that you make an attempt to explain any inconsistencies; after all you are likely to have carried out your research under somewhat different conditions from that which was published. Inconsistencies with no explanation will be viewed somewhat negatively.
Limitations of your study should then be addressed along with implications these may have for your results (you may have begun to do this when explaining why your findings are not consistent with previous research in the area).
You should then make some recommendations for future research.
Conclusion(300 words)
Your report should end with a concluding statements about the research. Your conclusions should provide a synthesis of your key results interpretations, and how these are relevant in a wider context – you should provide a succinct explanation of the implications of your findings.
Additional requirement based on my topic specific and forest plot(based on my supervisor advice):
The studies shows large heterogeneity and it might be worthwhile removing the main outlier(Phan 2017) with largest confidence interval in some of the forest plot
-It may or may not make difference on the results, but it will show that you have addressed this issue
-Explain reason for removing Phan 2017 from one of the forest plot, why have removed it and discuss the effect it has on the results after removing it
Discuss the heterogeneity in greater detail to help explain the high degree although it did come down to non-cardiac surgery, which again you can discuss
Discuss on non-uniform duration of mortality measurement in greater detail(short term and long term mortality)
Increase the detail of your results and discussion of those results and how did you reach your conclusion
The post Topic of research: Meta-analysis of the association between preoperativeanaemia and mortality after appeared first on PapersSpot.
