Hospital Flow Diagram Paper

Evaluating the eight papers for quality evidence was critical when selecting the two papers to utilise. The evidence hierarchy was considered, aiming to use the highest evidence possible, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses; and randomized, controlled, double-blind studies, to ensure the most accurate evidence informed the clinical decision for the patient (Bloom, Olinzock, Radjenoic & Trice, 2013). When sorting the results, other various factors were also taken into consideration; credibility, reputability, reasonability and support. With these factors taken into account, the two papers selected are highly esteemed in regards to evidence, and are most relevant to the patient (Stichler, 2010).

Hooton, T., Bradley, S., Cardenas, D., Colgan, R., Geerlings, S., Rice, J., Nicolle, L. (2010).

(Coffey et al., 2003; Cox et al., 2001; Finn et al., 2000). These findings are correlational,

| The discussion refers often to the topic and with adequate evidence from the literature. There is appraisal of the literature(19-21)

Finally, one article was found by conducting a search of the identified article’s reference section. This article was searched by title on the Cochrane database and was found useful to the clinical

32.8 participants with an event per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.28)

One criticism of this research is that it is correlational. Therefore, we cannot infer a causal

The authors relied heavily on two studies to create their argument. The first study mentioned was the Pinto et al article. In this study, "Pinto and colleagues (5) assessed the

This study was limited due to the small sample size. Although the conclusions are valid, more research with a

The results from this study only reflect a very small number of the population, so it is difficult for this experiment to show any significant results. It would have reflected better on the results if the sample size had been meet, however it was not possible due to lack of time and number of eligible volunteers.

Abstract of this article offer clear overview of the study, by explaining what was accomplish and what was the significant of the study. (Kagnovi et al Peer Research October 2017)

This study demonstrated

Of the 39 patients, according to RECIST criteria, 6 patients had partial response to treatment (PR) and 32 patients had Stable disease (SD). One patient was noted to have progressed with in the time. Categorization with CHOI criteria showed 33 responders with 3 patients each had stable disease and progressive disease. With the modified CHOI criteria, the numbers were 22, 14 and 3 for PR, SD and PD respectively (Table 6.1).

Only 5 cases were reported which limits study evidence. More number of cases should be observed to confirm the conclusion.

In the study of Mark Trueman et al. (1996) [3] it was indicated that -