Reference no: EM132277257 , Length: word count:4000
Objectives:
1. Develop and submit a project outline to their designated supervisor.
2. Access, review and critically evaluate the body of evidence of an identified topic.
3. Retrieve relevant sources of evidence and identify gaps in the literature.
4. Identify the requirements for good report writing and dissemination of the results.
5. Plan, implement and structure the review into a logical and organised format.
6. Evaluate and synthesise the body of evidence and utilize results to answer the project aim.
7. Critically discuss a literature review and relate findings to professional practice.
8. Critically review the literature and make recommendations for practice.
9. Prepare aspects of the research project for dissemination to a peer group.
10. Prepare a pack of information for relevant stakeholders e.g. service users and patients
Research Outline
Topic: Comparison between Computed Tomography and Ultrasound to diagnose acute appendicitis.
· PICO
· In patients with acute appendicitis is Computed Tomography (CT) comapre to Ultrasound (US)is more accurate to dignose?
PICO Format:
Population: patients with acute appendicitis.
Intervention: Scanning participants by Ultrasound (US)
Comparison: Computed Tomography(CT)
Outcome: Best modality to dignose acute appendicitis.
Aim:
To find the best modality to dignose acute appendicitis with patients.I apply this topic to improve the workflow of the hospitals in Oman and increase the radiographer's abilities & knowledge.
· Introduction:
- Justification of my topic and why I am doing this research.
- Background knowledge about using of virtual reality in learning of medical image student and compare it with traditional learning.
- Scale of problem and relevance to profession.
Search Strategy:
In details, specific way, how I reach to the last four articles.
· Critical Appraisal Tools:
- Summary the quality of articles
- Discuss the results
Discussion:
- Methodological limitations of articles
- Identify the gaps in the literature
- Recommendations for practice
- Use further evidences
Description of Research Project Components:
Critical Review (assessment component 1)
The components assess the student's critical skills in analysing research based and theoretical material, as well as the ability to present a logical and coherent account of it.
In conducting the literature review student is expected to include the following:
• Reading in the proposed topic area and related theoretical areas which strengthens relevance and importance of topic
• Insight into the search and review method
• A critical analysis of the research related to the topic using the knowledge of the research process and research methodology and methods.
• A discussion of any relevant theoretical aspects of the topic with identification of the ways these have been derived from, or supported in, the literature.
• An identification of the strengths, weaknesses and omissions in the literature
• A discussion of the implications of the literature for current and future practice.
Structure and format of the work presented
Student should adhere to the structure and format detailed below. Failure to do so will be reflected in the mark awarded.
Review title
The title should be concise and informative; a poorly worded title often indicates a poorly thought through project.
Abstract
The abstract should clearly and concisely describe a project and be easily understood by people outside of the project (i.e. no jargon or abbreviations). This should between 250-300 words and not include references: it does not count for the overall word allowance.
Introduction
The introduction provides the rationale and justification for the review and must be clearly stated. Student should provide a short introduction to the topic area and set the scene for the proposed review (that is, provide the background information). Issues covered are likely to include relevant policy and guidance on the topic; epidemiology (the scale of the problem); relevance to profession; any key issues that might influence search strategy and review (controversies, debates, clarification of terms used). This should be no more than 750 words.
This section should end by giving a clear indication of the question the review seeks to answer. Note: the question requires an even greater level of precision than project title. Students should use PICO format to ensure it contains the essential components for a question that will inform practice
PICO(T): The commonly used format for writing questions around quantitative reviews:
Population
Intervention
Comparator (not always included)
Outcomes
Time
PPC: Developed for qualitative reviews:
Population
Phenomena of interest
Context
SPICE: Has more generic application:
Setting
Perspective
Intervention
Comparison (if appropriate)
Evaluation (method of)
Methods
This should provide an explanation of the approach taken to the literature search:
• Time frame;
• Databases searched;
• Journals searched by hand should be included with date/periods searched;
• key terms used;
• The inclusion and exclusion criteria used to identify key papers (types of participants, types of intervention/activity, types of outcomes);
• The criteria used to judge the papers and key information extracted from each paper (various guidelines and check lists are available: SIGN, CASP, PEDro). If appropriate, the scheme used to grade the evidence reviewed and recommendations made should be detailed.
An excellent project will justify these decisions rather than simply describe them (for example why a particular time frame was chosen or particular research design was excluded).
Remember in designing search strategy student is not seeking to cover all of the relevant literature, instead is looking for the best, most important, literature.
The initial search may uncover too much or too little information and student will have to adjust strategy accordingly. The finding that there is not much literature is in itself an important one and student should make the most of this. See appendix (1).
Results/Findings
This section should start by explaining briefly how student narrowed down the search to the final evidence (include your search strategy in a data base search record appendix (2).This section covers the presentation of the main evidence from the review and a summary of its quality. It is the most difficult to structure and there will be a number of possibilities open to student in terms of how to deal with this task. The weakest approach will be to simply list each piece of literature reviewed in turn. A stronger approach that gives better evidence of ability to synthesise material is to use a thematic approach to the structure: for example by intervention, or outcome, or research design, to name but a few possibilities. In order to structure the results, students are advised to construct an evidence table and include this in the appendix of submission.
Discussion
This section outlines the implications of the review for the profession; highlight the methodological limitations of the review (are there any papers student could not get hold of because of difficulty accessing the journal or are they in another language); identify any gaps in the literature and make recommendations for practice and further research.
Conclusion
This should provide a statement of two or three key findings; these should be approximately 30 words in total (that is, 10-15 words each). There should be a statement of what the review has added (how it contributes to practice); this should be approximately 30 words in total.
The critical review format is now common in many journals so student should not have too much difficulty in finding a model to follow.
Structure of Critical Review: Summary
The main sections of the project should be as follows:
• Research project front cover (Declaration form)
• Title page.
• Acknowledgements of support received (not essential).*
• Abstract.*
• Introduction.
• Review Methods.
• Results.
• Discussion.
• Conclusion.
• Reference list.*
• Appendices.*
1) Search strategy
2) Evidence tables
Attachment:- Reseach project.rar