Category Archives: Literature review

Literature review, reading research, research

What’s in a Name?

Leave a comment

[this posting back by popular demand]

TITLES!! That’s what you get when you search for research online!

But, whether your search turns up 3 or 32,003 article titles….remember that a title tells you a LOT.  In fact, if well-written it is a mini-abstract of the study. 

For example take this research article title “What patients with abdominal pain expect about pain relief in the Emergency Department” by Yee et al. in 2006 in JEN.
• Variable (key factor that varies)?  Answer = Expectations about pain relief
• Population studied? Answer = ED patients with abdominal pain
• Setting? Answer = Maybe the ED (because they could’ve been surveyed after they got home or were admitted)
• Design?  Answer = not included, but you might guess that it is a descriptive study because it likely describes the patients’ expectations without any intervention.

There you have it! Now you know about TITLES!!

Now you try. Here’s your title: Gum chewing aids bowel function return and analgesic requirements after bowel surgery: a randomized controlled trial by Byrne CM, Zahid A, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Young CJ in May 2018

  • Variables? (this time there are 3 factors that vary–1 independent variable; & 2 dependent ones connected by “and”) Your answer is……
  • Population? (who is being studied; & if you have trouble identifying variables, identify the population first; then try) Your answer is….
  • Setting? (where; maybe not so clear; might have to go to abstract for this one) Your answer is….
  • Design of study? (it’s right there!) Your answer…..

Congratulate yourself!

Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, Evidence hierarchy, Literature review, Novice to Expert, Professional Nursing, Qualitative research, research

Missing in Action: The Pyramid foundation

Leave a comment

Last post I commented on the potentially misleading terms of Filtered & Unfiltered Filtered Unfiltered jpgresearch.  My key point?  Much so-called “unfiltered research” has been screened (filtered) carefully through peer-review before publication; while some “filtered research”  may have been ‘filtered’ only by a single expert & be out of date. If we use the terms filtered and unfiltered we should not be naive about their meanings. (Pyramid source:  Wikimedia Commons )

This week, I address what I see as a 2nd problem with this evidence based medicine pyramid.  That is, missing in action from it are descriptive, correlation, & in-depth qualitative research are not mentioned.  Where are they?  This undercuts the EBM pyramid as a teaching tool and also (intentionally or not) denigrates the necessary basic type of research on which stronger levels of evidence are built.  That foundation of the pyramid, called loosely “background information,” includes such basic, essential research.

Ask an ExpertYou may have heard of Benner’s Novice to Expert  theory.  Benner used in-depth, qualitative interview descriptions as data to generate her theory.  Yet that type of research evidence is missing from medicine’s pyramid!  Without a clear foundation the pyramid will just topple over.  Better be clear!

I recommend substituting (or at least adding to your repertoire) an Evidence Based NURSING (EBN) pyramid.  Several versions exist & one is below that includes some of the previously missing research!  This one includes EBP & QI projects, too! Notice the explicit addition of detail to the below pyramid as described at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRbuzzKjcM.EBN

Critical thinking:  #1List some EBM & EBN pyramid differences.  #2 Figure out where on the hierarchy this project would go: Crowell, J., OʼNeil, K., & Drager, L. (2017). Project HANDS: A bundled approach to increase short peripheral catheter dwell time. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 40(5), 274-280. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000237.   1st use medicine’s EBM pyramid; & then 2nd use nursing’s EBN pyramid.  #3 Label Crowell et al.’s study as filtered or unfiltered and explain what you mean by that.

For more info:  Watch the YouTube video at the link above.

Cochrane, Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, History of research, Literature review

Filtered vs. Unfiltered: What do these terms mean?

Leave a comment

Are we talking cigarettes?  water? coffee? other?   Yes, other.   In this case about what is sometimes called “filtered” or “unfiltered” literature in the evidence-based medicine pyramid of research evidence.  (I have more than one issue with this particular pyramid as a representation of all evidence, but for right now let’s look at filtered information & unfiltered information.  Pyramid source:  Wikimedia Commons  
Filtered Unfiltered jpg

Filtered is considered stronger–meaning that we can be more confident that literature from this category better  supports cause and effect.  I agree.

Unfiltered evidence (usually single studies etc) is considered weaker–meaning that we must be more cautious about its accuracy in representing reality.  I agree.

But, “Is unfiltered information really unfiltered?”  No filtering at all? My qualified answer is, “No.”   Argue with me if you like.

My opinion: If the “unfiltered” article is a primary source, research study that has strong design and is published in a peer-review journal then it has been filtered by multiple, expert peer reviewers just to make it to publication.

Thus, when discussing filtered vs. unfiltered one should be very clear on what those terms mean and do not mean.

Critical Thinking: When filtered literature (systematic reviews & critically appraised topics & articles) has been filtered by one individual, is that superior to unfiltered literature in terms of introducing bias?  What if the “filtered” evidence is 7 years old and a primary, “unfiltered” source(s) from this year has different findings?   What is the relationship between “filtered” and “unfiltered”–after all the “unfiltered” is the pyramid base so what does that mean?

For more Info:  For peer review, the lower level filtering of single studies, consider its 1)  advantages (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/)  and 2) its potential flaws (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/)

Disseminating findings, Evidence based nursing, Literature review, Publication, reading research, Research class, Research student, School papers, Writing

DIY your own Intro/Background: Structure & Argument

1 Comment

Want to know how to write an introduction/background section of a paper?  Pay attention to STRUCTURE & evidence-based ARGUMENT in order to DIY (do-it-yourself) your own intro/background for a school paper or research report!

Let’s use this 2015 free full-text article by Marie Flem Sørbø et al. as a model!  Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway .   (Hint: Clicking on the article’s pdf tab may make it easier to read.)

Focus only on the INTRO/BACKGROUND section for now.  Check out the STRUCTURE then the EVIDENCE-BASED ARGUMENT of the Intro/Background.  This is how you should write your own.

STructure

STRUCTURE of INTRO/BACKGROUND in Sørbø et al. (2015):

  1. Where is the Intro/Background section located in the article?
  2. What heading is used for the section?
  3. Where are the research questions located in the Intro/Background?  (HINT: this is the standard place in all papers & in this case the authors call them “aims.)
Why2

ARGUMENTS in INTRO/BACKGROUND in Sørbø et al. (2015):

  1. Look at the first (topic) sentence of each paragraph in INTRO/BACKGROUND & listen to the systematic argument the researchers are making for WHY their study is important.
    • “Breast feeding has long been acknowledged as the optimal infant nutrition conferring beneficial short-term and long-term health effects for both infants and mothers.1–5      …
    • Abuse of women is common worldwide, as one in three women during lifetime suffer partner or non-partner abuse.10   …Adverse  effects [of abuse]… are barriers to breast feeding.*…
    • Given the overwhelming evidence of the positive effects of breast feeding, knowledge about factors influencing breastfeeding behaviour is essential….
    • We explored the impact of abuse of women on breastfeeding behaviour in a large prospective population in Norway where the expectations to breast feed are high, and breast feeding is facilitated in the work regulations….” (pp. 1-2)
      evidence2
  2. Now look at the research & other evidence written down AFTER each of above key sentences that SUPPORT each idea.
  3. Notice that the INTRO/BACKGROUND is NOT a series of abstracts of different studies!!  Instead evidence is grouped into key arguments for the study: Breast feeding is best, Abuse is common, Abuse creates barriers to breastfeeding, & Therefore, knowing about factors affecting breastfeeding is important). [Note: Of course, if your particular professor or editor asks you to do a series of abstracts, then you must, but do group them in arguments like the topic sentences.]

All this leads naturally, logically to …(drum roll please!)…the research questions/hypotheses, which are the gaps in our knowledge that the research will fill.  This sets up the rest of the research article!

Image result for star
Critical Thinking:  Your turn! Write your own Intro/Background using
STructure

  • Structure: Placement in article, heading, placement of research question/hypothesis
    Why2
  • Argument: Key idea topic sentences (make a list 1st) with supporting research & other evidence (your literature review).

For more info on Intro/Background:  Review my blogpost Intro to Intro’s

*ok, yeh. I cheated and included one additional sentence to capture the authors’ flow of argument.

Literature review, reading research

Introduction to Introductions!

1 Comment

In a couple of recent blog entries I noted what you can and cannot learn from research 1) titles & 2) abstracts. Now, let me introduce you to the next part of research article:  Introduction (or sometimes called Background or no title at all!).   Introduction immediately follows the abstract.Start

The introduction/background  “[a] outlines the background of the problem or issue being examined, [b] summarizes the existing literature on the subject, and [c] states the research questions, objectives, and possibly hypothesis” (p. 6, Davies & Logan, 2012)

This section follows the abstract. It may or may not have a heading(s) of “Introduction” or “Background” or both.  Like the abstract, the Introduction describes the problem in which the researcher is interested & sometimes the specific research question or hypothesis that will be measured.

In the Intro/Background you will get a more full description of why the problem is a priority for research and what is already known about the problem (i.e., literature writing-handreview).

Key point #1: Articles & research that are reviewed in theIntro/Background should be mostly within the past 5-7 years.  Sometimes included are classic works that may be much older OR sometimes no recent research exists.   If recent articles aren’t used, this should raise some questions in your mind.   You know well that healthcare changes all the time!!  If old studies are used the author should explain.

Key point #2:  The last sentence or two in theIntro/Background is usually the research question or hypothesis (unless the author awards it its own section).  If you need to know the research question/hypothesis right away, you can skip straight to the end of the Intro/background—and there it is!

Critical Thinking: 1) Read the abstract then 2) Read the 1st section of this 2015 free full-text article by Marie Flem Sørbø et al.:  Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway

  • Is it called Introduction/Background or both?
  • What literature is already available on the problem or issue being examined?
  • What are the research questions/hypotheses?  (After reading above you should know exactly where to look for these now.)

For More Info:  Check out especially Steps #1, #2, & #3 of How to read a research article.

Disseminating findings, Literature review, Publishing, Writing

?Trustworthy? Protect Your Reputation!

Leave a comment

If you are writing something for publication, watch this 2 minute video before selecting a journal!   You’ll thank yourself for doing it.

  1. Thinkthinker
  2. Check
  3. Submit

< 2 minute video that tells you how to think, check, submit:  

  http://thinkchecksubmit.org/

Don’t be fooled.   It’s a lot of work to prepare something to publish, and you want your work to appear in a credible source and be accessible.   It’s YOUR reputation!

If you are a student search for literature, it is important to know this also!!  You want to use the highest quality evidence you can find for your projects.

Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, Literature review, reading research, research

33,000 foot view isn’t enough! Get down on the Ground To See What’s Really Happening!

1 Comment

My last blog post listed the usual sections of a research report (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, & discussion/conclusion); and I illustrated the amazing things you can learn from only an article title!Its not enough

This week? Abstracts.   Abstracts are great; abstracts are not enough!

An abstract gives us only enough info to INaccurately apply the study findings to practice.

An abstract typically summarizes all the other sections of the article, such as  the question the researcher wanted to answer, how the researcher collected data to answer it, and what that data showed.  This is great when you are trying to get the general picture, but you should Never assume that the abstract tells you what you need to know.

Wrong WayAbstracts can mislead you IF you do not read the rest of the article.  They are only a short 100-200 words and so they leave out key information.   You may misunderstand study results if you read only the abstract.   An abstract’s 33,000 foot level description of a study, cannot reveal the same things that can be revealed in the up-close & personal description of the full article.

So…what is the takeaway?  Definitely read the abstract to get the general idea.  Then read the full article beginning to end to get the full & beautiful picture of the study.  Davies & Logan (2012) Butterflyencourage us,  Don’t give up reading the full article just because some parts of the study may be hard to understand.  Just read and get what you can, then re-read the difficult-to-understand parts.  Get some help with those PRN.

 

Critical thinking:   What info is missing from the below abstract that you might want to know?

J Nurses Prof Dev. 2016 May-Jun;32(3):130-6. doi: 10.1097/NND.0000000000000227.    Partnering to Promote Evidence-Based Practice in a Community Hospital: Implications for Nursing Professional Development Specialists. Highfield ME1, Collier A, Collins M, Crowley M.

ABSTRACT: Nursing professional development specialists working in community hospitals face significant barriers to evidence-based practice that academic medical centers do not. This article describes 7 years of a multifaceted, service academic partnership in a large, urban, community hospital. The partnership has strengthened the nursing professional development role in promoting evidence-based practice across the scope of practice and serves as a model for others.

More info on abstracts & other components of research articles?  Check out Davies & Logan (2012) Reading Research published by Elsevier.

Cochrane, Literature review, Outcome measurement, Questionnaires, Reliability & validity, research methods

“Please answer!” – How to increase the odds in your favor when it comes to questionnaires

1 Comment

Self-report by participants is one of the most common ways that researchers collect data, yet it is fraught with problems.   Some worries for researchers are: “Will participants be honest or will they say what they think I want to hear?”   “Will they understand the DifferentGroupsquestions correctly?”  “Will those who respond (as opposed to those who don’t respond) have unique ways of thinking so that my respondents do not represent everyone well?” and a BIG worry “Will they even fill out and return the questionnaire?”

One way to solve at least the latter 2 problems is to increase the response rate, and Edwards et al (2009 July 8) reviewed randomized trials  to learn how to do just that!!Questionnaire faces

If you want to improve your questionnaire response rates, check it out!  Here is Edwards et al.’s plain language summary as published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, where you can read the entire report.

Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires

MailPostal and electronic questionnaires are a relatively inexpensive way to collect information from people for research purposes. If people do not reply (so called ‘non-responders’), the research results will tend to be less accurate. This systematic review found several ways to increase response. People can be contacted before they are sent a postal questionnaire. Postal questionnaires can be sent by first class post or recorded delivery, and a stamped-return envelope can be provided. Questionnaires, letters and e-mails can be made more personal, and preferably kept short. Incentives can be offered, for example, a small amount of money with Remember jpga postal questionnaire. One or more reminders can be sent with a copy of the questionnaire to people who do not reply.

 

Critical/reflective thinking:  Imagine that you were asked to participate in a survey.  Which of these strategies do you think would motivate or remind you to respond and why?

For more info read the full report: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires

 

Literature review, Professional Nursing

It was the best of evidence; it was the worst of evidence.

Leave a comment

evidencebased practiceEvidence-based practice = best available evidence + expert clinical judgment + patient & family values/preferences.

When clinicians diagnose & treat based on outdated or inadequate knowledge, then outcomes are at best uncertain.  The internet itself is a poor information source; & colleagues may be no more up-to-date that you.

Good sources are the world-wide Cochrane Collaboration and the specific evidence-based Homepractice journals that are beginning to grow–these take best information from the research report all the way through clinical recommendations.   For research reports per se, PubMed is a comprehensive, U.S. tax-supported Findingsdatabase; & there when you find information that fits using your key search terms, you can also look for related articles & get full-text through interlibrary loan or online.  Another strategy is take the article that fits your clinical issue to your librarian, and ask for help in finding more research on the identical clinical issue.

While no one can read everything in the literature, everyone can read something. You can do a focused review on any particular problem.

Critical thinking:  Is there a clinical issue that you think could use a better solution?  Plug related words into PubMed & see what you can learn.question

For more information see fulltext at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC226388/

Evidence based nursing, Literature review, patient education, Professional Nursing, public health, zika

ZIKA: Evidence-based clinical guidelines to prevent sexual transmission

Leave a comment

As  you probably know Zika is already causing problems in an area outside of Miami, FL. CDC has taken the unusual step of issuing a travel warning there. 16743-close-up-of-a-mosquito-feeding-on-blood-pv

Accurate clinician and patient information in the U.S. will become more critical, and your advice to others could save lives as the disease spreads.

imagesCALQ0QK9Some of the best evidence on what to teach is from CDC.  These experts have reviewed the best available literature and developed these clear  evidence-based clinical guidelines to
prevent sexual transmission of Zika.  Such evidence-based guidelines are considered very STRONG evidence--some of the strongest out there!! (For more see: “I like my “I like my coffee (and my evidence) strong!”)

Note that I point out, as do they, that these guidelines are based on the best available evidence which continues to evolve.  (It wasn’t that long ago when experts denied that Zika could be sexually transmitted.  Now we know better.)

what so what what nextScientific evidence is not static. It is dynamic and ever evolving.  This is not a problem with science, but is part of its very nature–that of discovery.

“Why this matters: Clinicians should continue to educate all patients about ZIKV sexual transmission risk, to conduct testing for all persons with possible sexual exposure, and to report all cases of ZIKV to local health authorities” (CDC, 2016).

Critical thinking: How might you use this information at work or with the broader public?question

For more information: Check out CDC Zika Virus webpage 

 

Making research accessible to RNs

%d bloggers like this: