Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
quantatative research (BIAS? selection of participants ? outcomes measured…
quantatative research
-
-
methods/data collection
sample group: who was in the sample? inclusion exclusion criterior? did they represent the group being studied ?
-
-
-
what are the results can I apply them to my patient? can i apply them to a clinical decition?do they apply to a clinical setting
-
results always follow the same pattern- starts broad and then goes into more detail, table and figures, need to reread and go over table several times
Q2:was the assigment of patients to treatments randomised?
how was randomisation carried out ?
pts were randomisation from computer generated numbers- numbers were sealed in envelopes - the allocation of patients were blinded to the treating staff-
pts were recruited from a both based on inclusion criterior. randomisation assumes that important intervening variables are equal btwn groups (text p.146)pain score level was veriable - could have been unequal number of patients with higher pain scores ? could be effected by NP/Dr wanting to get analgesia earlier base on higher pain score. collect sample that has minium bias - represents charactoristics of group/ target study_
blinding was not possible for this study
Q3. were all the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at the conclusion?
all patients were accounted for - reasons for exclusion was documented was the trail stopped early?analysis of groups randomised ? baseline obs taken
Q5: were the groups similar at the start of the trial? - factors that might effect the outcomes such as age, sex social class.- the groups were similar at the start
-
Q7: How large was the treatment effect? outcomes measured was time to analgesia - the primary outcomes measured was proportion of patients who recieved analgesia within the Australian national target of 30 minutes, the secound outcome was time to analgesia after being seen. researchs state in there objectives that they study was to measure the effectiveness of NP in EDS. The study reported that patients allocoted to the NP group were given analgesia 17mintes early than the contol group.also 20% more patients were treated within the 30minutes time frame with NP than standard treatment. P= Value significance, 0.13 0- not statistically significance
Q9: can the results be applied in your context? can the patient cohort be transferred to other areas?
-
-
-
-
-
population group were determined via inclusion criterior - triage allocation <2 pain score > 1 , english speaking, able to sign consent
can the results be used to answer the question?is the quality of the study good enough to inform clinical pratice?can you make clinical decitions based on the findings
RCT's and hierachy of evidence - wanting to discovered what is the best intervention- the same intervention - both getting pain relief - to see the difference btwn two different standards of care - wanting to evaluate the effectiveness of NPs in the emergency department compared to Drs - only one aspect of care - was this the best way to test their effectiveness (akobange - reading list)
pts need to be treated the same apart from the treatment being studied - so difference in outcomes are attributed to the intervention (Acobange- reading list) - so can RCTs be used for interventions other than trail therapies?
Q2: RCT to prevent selection bias of groups - yes this was done - but was the selection of patients the variable (katobe)? - cat of patient could influence outcomes - yes - higher the category the more severe the injury - more pressing the need to get analgesia, a balanced allocation of known and unknown factors - between the two groups, the differnences