2
Matrix
Lauren Zeagler
NURS 601 Evidence Based Practice
July 18, 2021
APA Citation (Crane):
(Zvizdic et al.,2019)
(Bhatt et al., 2015)
(Sundh et al., 2020)
Variable and key concepts
List the important points of the article, variables, framework, and concepts mentioned.
Were hypothesis stated or implied?
What was the research question? Was it clearly stated?
The research evaluated the differences in exacerbations for the individuals examined with both digoxin and verapamil or just BB for those at different stages of COPD.
The authors did not state the hypothesis and the questions for the research.
The research determined how the usage of BBs in individuals with acute COPD conditions can be harmful to them.
The researchers stated their hypothesis that “use of BBs would be associated with a decrease in exacerbation.”
The research question was on how the use of BBs to patients with COPD on home oxygen relates to high mortality.
The study did not outline the question clearly.
The research determined the ways that BBs are related to the decrease in the possibilities of deaths and exacerbations for the patient with COPD.
The study never included the research hypothesis.
The question was whether adding a hundred grams of metoprolol per day to the standards of care for COPD reduces exacerbations, mortality, and heart events within one year.
The questions were stated clearly.
Sampling
Who were the participants?
How many? What is enough?
How were participants gathered (sampling plan)?
Did any drop out? Why?
Individuals diagnosed with COPD illnesses were the study participants.
It involved sixty-eight patients and was not enough for the analysis.
The participants were divided according to those with moderate and acute COPD conditions.
There were no exclusions.
The participants were the patients with GOLD stage II and IV.
It included 3464 participants.
The research recruited individuals who were former and current smokers and aged between 45-80 years.
The study excluded individuals with known lung problems apart from asthma and COPD conditions.
The study participants were patients with COPD illness.
It included 1700 participants.
The participants were invited using letters, social networks, newspapers, and invitations during their normal clinical visits.
Patients with illnesses like stroke problems, flutter, and ischemic cardiac problems were excluded.
Design and Method
How was the research designed?
Quantitative? Qualitative, mixed?
What is appropriate to answer the question?
Researchers examined individuals diagnosed with COPD condition and a check-out of twelve months.
The research was quantitative as it involved the collection and analyses of data.
The research was necessary to determine that the use of BBs has a protective effect in patients diagnosed with COPD.
The research was designed to compare the groups’ classified use of BBs on the longitudinal follow-ups.
The research was both quantitative and qualitative as researchers used questionnaires and statistical methods to analyze data.
The study used the PRECIS-2 technique to match the design options regarding how to test outcomes could be used.
The research would be quantitative, which was appropriate for the study question.
Instruments/Data Collection
What data was collected?
Was the data sufficient?
What instrument was used? Survey? Interview? Questionnaire?
Was the instrument valid?
There was no data gathered; researchers analyzed exacerbations for the patients with COPD.
However, the sample used for the research was small.
The study obtained data on medication use, acute diseases, and vital status.
The data obtained was sufficient.
The researchers used questionnaires that were valid for the study.
The study will use medical history exacerbations, heart events, and mortality data.
The study did not use any instrument to collect data.
Results
What were the results?
Is it what you expected?
Does it make sense?
Research outcome depicted a rise in the total exacerbations for group III participants more than group II.
I expected the number of exacerbations to increase for the severe patients due to the increase in the swelling of the airways over the 12 months of follow-up.
The results showed that BBs is related to the lower rate of acute and total exacerbations for the patients in group III and IV.
The results were according to my expectations that BBs related to a reduction of severe illnesses.
The research does not include the research outcome.
Strengths & Limitations
Strengths:
What were the strengths of the study?
Did it show a statistical difference? Was it supported?
Limitations:
Researchers found that using BBs for COPD patients should be a curative option in terms of respiratory virology.
The article depicted a important difference between severe and moderate COPD patients.
However, the researchers used small sample research.
The researchers gathered their data from a well-identified COPD unit.
The study used the chi-square and t-test to determine the statistical differences.
However, the research had limitations like
The medications were self-reported.
Patients with heart diseases and lung illness did not receive BBs.
The study used time for reporting exacerbations.
They based the mortality evaluation on the vital status information.
The potential strength of the research is to facilitate rapid inclusion and reflect on a real-world population that has high external generalizability and validity.
The potential limitations are: the treatment is un-blinded, and the researchers are not sure if the follow-up period will be enough.
There are no statistical differences as the study has not been conducted.
Critique
Overall, what is your opinion of the study?
Can you use this study for your literature review?
Did the researchers explain their research well?
Was it easy to understand?
Does the research make sense?
The research was challenging to understanding as the researcher made never explained the concept well.
The research was difficult to comprehend.
The research was helpful in determining the importance of BBs for patients with moderate COPD. The researcher explained his research well, making it easy to understand, and I can use the study in the literature review.
The study made sense.
The study will help in determining how the BBs helps to decrease in the risk mortality and exacerbation for the patient with COPD.
I can use the study for the literature review.
The research proposal is well explained and easy to understand.
The study makes sense.
Reference
Bhatt et al. (2015). β-Blockers are associated with a reduction in COPD exacerbations. Thorax, 71(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207251
Sundh, J., Magnuson, A., Montgomery, S., Andell, P., Rindler, G., & Fröbert, O. (2020). Beta-blockeRs tO patieNts with CHronIc Obstructive puLmonary diseasE (BRONCHIOLE) – Study protocol from a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3907-1
Zvizdic et al.; (n.d.). Beta-blocker Use in Moderate and Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia, and Herzegovina). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31391690/.
The post 2 Matrix Lauren Zeagler NURS 601 Evidence Based Practice July 18, 2021 appeared first on PapersSpot.
