Menu

Nursing Portfolio

0 Comment

Usually if a Pedro rating is not incorporated in the article, then a low score will be provided on the scale. I will make exceptions on some of the articles below. Article 1: The Efficacy of Nutrition and Lifestyle Approaches in the Treatment of Depression This article’s treatment plan is somewhat believable. The criteria and eligibility of who is in this study is clear to some extent but not clear enough. This study uses random allocation to measure its results. There is no mention that it is a random study nor any indication is given of whether the participants are from different backgrounds or not (1 point). This study conceals allocation by not providing any detailed information on the participants (1 + 1 = 2 points). There is a comparability of the groups at baseline and the study is blind because we have an age range and a control vs noncontrol group (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 points). The therapists and assessors component is not fully satisfied because there is no mention of therapist and their techniques included along with no indication of a well established person in charge of administering the treatment. It is a random list of items to deal with finding an alternative to medication for depression. The only followup here is that the participants have no way of curing depression. That would be considered enough of a followup because participants of the study are aware that this is not a cure but rather a possible solution to depression (5 points). In other words, little mention as to a followup study has been recorded. This study does not use enough statistical analysis to provide evidence of achieving its results. Three confident interval scores were used and that is not enough to prove that nutrition and lifestyle changes help. There is mention of point estimates on the mean however this does not provide enough evidence that the items they suggest help to benefit depression. This article is granted a Pedro rating of 5 which means it is fair. I could have gone to 4 or 6 but I think 5 is more of a proper score. Any article with a score of 6 or above would be considered a worthy study. Overall this article gets a 2b rating. Article 2: Aspirin Use and Lung, Colon, and Breast Cancer: Incidence in a prospective study Random allocation and the concealment of this allocation is clear. We know who is in the study and we also know that it remains confidential. The study is believable and states clear demographics. Also the identities of the participants is secure (1 + 1 + 1 = 3 points). The comparision of groups at baseline is illustrated throughout the research because we are comparing those who take aspirin and get various types of cancer and those who do not. There is a follow up of results with a 12.4 year period (2 + 3 = 5 points). This article provides several charts and provides a lot of analysis on those who use aspirin and whether they are less likely to get cancer. They provide a lot of substantial evidence and use appropriate measures to establish a list of results. The background on how they use these measures is also quite thoroughly investigated (5 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 points). Overall, this article has a Pedro rating of 8 which means that it is good in the presentation of experimental methods and it has a clear demonstration of its demographics. It is also easily conceivable that this research would have these results judging only on the presentation and the