Interventions for Shoulder Impingement Syndrome

The role that research plays in the advancement of healthcare cannot be overstated. Through research, effective interventions that alleviate the suffering of patients are discovered. More importantly, research enables the healthcare community to identify interventions that are ineffective or harmful. To ensure that research yields positive outcomes, guidelines and frameworks have been developed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is among these frameworks. When they integrate PRISMA into the studies that they conduct, researchers obtain findings that carry practical value and are in line with established best practices for research. Dong et al. (2015) are among the scholars who grounded their study on the PRISMA framework. As a result, they obtained insights into the most effective interventions for the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS). A scrutiny of their study reveals that it adheres to standard guidelines and that the findings are credible.

Research Question 

The PRISMA framework addresses a broad range of issues. Among these issues is the requirement that scholars should outline the questions that guided the research process. In particular, PRISMA demands that the research questions should address such issues as the outcomes being assessed, the interventions that are to be examined and the expected outcomes. Dong et al. do not explicitly state their research question. However, in the text, they indicate the purpose of this research. From the purpose statement, it is possible to determine the research question. According to Dong and his colleagues, the purpose of their research was to compare the various treatments for SIS. To achieve this purpose, they focused their attention on such outcomes as reduction in pain levels that participants reported and the restoration of function in areas affected by SIS. There is no doubt that the research question that Dong et al. sought to answer is sensible.

Above, the research question developed by Dong and his team has been endorsed as sensible. Its sensibility lies in its relevance to the entire study and the implications that it presents for practice. In the text, Dong et al. note that SIS is a common problem. They state that this condition is responsible for as many as 65% of cases of shoulder pain reported in the US. By seeking to determine how the various treatments for SIS compare, these scholars provide practitioners with valuable insights that they can integrate into the treatment and management of SIS. Thus, the research question has practical significance. This question is also relevant to the study. It made it possible for the researchers to ensure that the extensive literature review that they conducted directly addressed the treatments for SIS. In fact, they state that one of the criteria for inclusion is that reviewed studies needed to be aimed at establishing effective interventions for SIS.

The Patient, Interventions, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) model is among the foundational elements of the PRISMA framework. Using this model, scholars are successful in delivering insights that enhance the health of specific populations who experience improved outcomes after exposure to particular interventions. The research question discussed above echoes the PICO model. For example, the question includes references to various treatments for SIS (interventions and comparison) and addresses how these treatments affect pain levels and functional difficulties (outcome) among patients with SIS (patient). Therefore, it is fair to conclude that in addition to being sensible, the research question is also guided by the PICO model.

Search Process 

The process that scholars employ in their search for literature is indeed crucial. According to the PRISMA framework, it is important for researchers to describe the search process that they used. Dong and his team satisfied this requirement. In the methodology section of their text, they outline how they determined the literature to include in the review. They note that the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and Medline served as the sources of the reviewed studies. These databases are credible and contain massive volumes of peer-reviewed and reliable texts. Therefore, by choosing to obtain their literature from these databases, Dong et al. injected credibility and authority into their review. In addition to stating the databases that they scoured for literature, researchers also need to describe the specific steps that they took. Dong and his colleagues note that their search process involved the use of such keywords as shoulder, rotator cuff, impingement, and shoulder impingement syndrome. Thanks to these keywords, they were able to obtain studies that they were relevant. In general, the search process is appropriate. However, one of its shortcomings is that it lacks a time bound that would have enabled Dong and his colleagues to acquire more recent insights. These scholars state that they included in their search articles that were published since the three databases were created up to 15 April 2014. Given this time limit, it is possible that some of the reviewed studies are outdated and contain information that is no longer relevant.

While it is important for researchers to focus their attention on published studies appearing in credible databases, they should also consider non-published evidence. Dong et al. failed to do this. They limited their review to the literature that they found in the three databases identified above. By omitting non-published evidence, these researchers essentially silenced literature that contains vital insights but was not published. However, given how extensive their review was, it is likely that Dong et al. captured diverse voices and perspectives.

Quality of Primary Studies 

The search process and the research question have limited impact when scholars fail to ensure that the primary studies that they review are of high quality. These studies obtain their validity mostly from the fact that they appear in peer-reviewed journals and databases. Moreover, as Dong and his team make clear in their text, they ensured that each study satisfied their inclusion criterion. Among other things, this criterion required that the studies should discuss the impact of various interventions on the experiences of patients with SIS. Therefore, combined with the peer-reviewed quality of the studies, the inclusion criterion adds to the quality of the studies.

Dong and his team must have recognized that for their review to be considered credible, they needed to evaluate each study individually. They did this. These researchers note that they tasked independent reviewers with the mandate of screening the studies and ensuring that they were relevant and in line with the inclusion criterion. Furthermore, these researchers established a mechanism for resolving any and all conflicts that emerged from the study screening process. This mechanism involved requiring the independent reviewers to engage in consultation. If this consultation failed to yield consensus, a third reviewer was invited and asked to shed light. Given how rigorous the scrutiny of the primary studies was, there is no question that these studies are of high quality. Therefore, the conclusion that Dong et al. reached reflects available research evidence and is valid.

In closing, as they conduct studies, researchers should understand that there are stringent guidelines that have been developed to govern research. The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that studies are conducted in a way that leads to credible and useful insights. The PRISMA framework is indeed a vital tool that helps researchers to deliver information which improves healthcare delivery. When they performed their study, Dong et al. understood the importance of adhering to the guidelines that constitute the PRISMA framework. It is therefore not surprising that their study yielded knowledge that can be incorporated into the treatment of SIS. There is a need for other researchers to follow the PRISMA framework and other relevant guidelines when conducting research.

Reference

Dong, W., Goost, H., Lin, X., Burger, C., Paul, C., Wang, Z., Zhang, T., Jiang, Z., Welle, K., & Kabir, K. (2015). Treatments for shoulder impingement syndrome. Medicine, 94 (10), 1-17.