Critiquing a research article is an instrumental process that allows scholars to ascertain the validity, accuracy, reliability, and relevance of the study. The research critique will be conducted in three parts for an in-depth analysis of the study.
Part 1
Quantitative
The title of the article “D ‐ dimer test for excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism,” is comprehensive and allows a reader to pinpoint what the article is about at a glance. The abstract is all-inclusive (Crawford et al., 2013). The information in the abstract reflects all the sections in the paper, presented concisely and succinctly. In this regard, a reader can understand the subsections in the paper by simply reading the abstract.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The introduction section is elaborate since the authors present the study question at the start of the introduction section to inform readers about what the study seeks to explore. However, the study lacks an explicitly stated statement of the problem, theoretical framework, and literature review sections. Hence, it is conspicuous that the introduction is not holistic.
Qualitative
The title of the article is clear and concise since it successful communicates what the research paper is about. The title of the research is “Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence” (Ames, Glenton, & Lewin, 2015). The abstract consist of a summary of the background, objective, search method, selection criteria, main data, and conclusion sections. Thus, the abstract wholesomely summarizes the entire research paper.
The background section in the study serves as an introduction, and it details the importance of undertaking the study and provides general information about the topic being reviewed. The statement of the problem is integrated into the introduction rather than having an explicit subtopic for the section. However, there is no distinctive literature review, conceptual underpinning, and research question sections.
Part 2
Quantitative
Participants who were allowed to take part in the study were expected to sign a consent form, and their confidentiality was warranted as a mean of conforming to ethical provisions governing research. The study obtained findings from the work of other empirical researchers. A meta-analysis study design was adopted since the study sort to evaluate findings presented by other quantitative studies (Crawford et al., 2013). The study explored cross-sectional studies of D-dimer that were relevant to the research problem. The data was collected through independent extraction of data. The quality of the obtained data was measured using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies ‐ 2. The patient population was not specified, but eligibility for the study was based on an individual’s portrayals of symptoms that are associated with acute PE. The data was analyzed through the creation of receiver operating characteristics and forest plots.
Qualitative
No ethical provisions in relation to conservation of the rights of participants were applicable to this study since it is based on secondary data obtained from studies that met the stringent selection criteria. The research design adopted for the study is critical analysis and discussion of data presented by other longitudinal studies on the topic (Ames, Glenton, & Lewin, 2015). Studies that focused on the experiences and perceptions of informal caregivers and parents regarding dissipation of information regarding vaccination of children under the age of six years were integrated. The studies were identified through electronic searches on MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Anthropology Plus. Since a large number of studies compromise the quality of finding, the authors used purposive sampling to choose from eligible studies. The collected data was analyzed using a thematic analysis coupled with a five-step process. The trustworthiness of the study was undertaken by appraising the confidence in the findings.
Part 3
Quantitative
The study selection criterion was based on patient selection, flow and timing, reference standard, and index test. Only four studies met the eligibility criteria and were incorporated into the research. The validity and reliability of the findings were guaranteed through the rigorous selection process that eliminated sources that has far-reaching limitations, demonstrates research biases, and adopted arguably flawed methods (Bates et al., 2016).
In the discussion section, the findings were interpreted to mean quantitative D-dimer tests that are broadly adopted in emergency departments result in a high level of sensitivity, few false negatives, and high levels of false-positives across the age spectrum. The study recommends that a higher threshold for the interpretation of the D-dimer test result in a bid to foster specificity in old patients.
The presentation of the study is succinct, and the many conspicuous topics highlighted in capital letters improves the readability of the study. Ideally, the research is credible since the study selection criteria eliminate sources that adopted a flawed research methodology. Ultimately, the study presents credible, relevant, and valid findings.
Qualitative
Using the thematic analysis method, the study was able to present credible results. The integration of theories to explain the findings was demonstrated (Leask et al., 2012). The study elucidates that parents perceived vaccination information to be utterly essential (Ames, Glenton, & Lewin, 2015). The study recommends that addressing the inadequacy of information about vaccinations decapitated to parents is paramount.
The study is presented coherently, and the results are tabulated for easy comprehension. The adoption of the CERQual assessments improved the credibility, reliability, and validity of the data. Typically, the study is relevant and massively contributes to the information pool.
References
Ames, H. M., Glenton, C., & Lewin, S. (2015). Parents' and informal caregivers' views and experiences of routine early childhood vaccination communication: qualitative evidence synthesis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , (7).
Bates, S. M., Takach Lapner, S., Douketis, J. D., Kearon, C., Julian, J., Parpia, S., ... & Lim, W. (2016). Rapid quantitative D ‐ dimer to exclude pulmonary embolism: a prospective cohort management study. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis , 14 (3), 504-509.
Crawford, F., Andras, A., Welch, K., Sheares, K., Keeling, D., & Chappell, F. M. (2013). D ‐ dimer test for excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , (12).
Leask, J., Kinnersley, P., Jackson, C., Cheater, F., Bedford, H., & Rowles, G. (2012). Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals. BMC pediatrics , 12 (1), 154.
