Randomized Controlled Zinc Supplementation and HIV

$20.00

Students are to critically appraise  their selected article according to the following headings and sub-headings. Please note that the sections in italics are guidelines only and are not intended to be answered in a question answer format.

TITLE PAGE (including name, student no, subject, class, lecturer, word count)

INTRODUCTION (3 marks)

Need to introduce your paper here with proper referencing (ie author and title). For Example: In this paper the article entitled “The therapeutic use of Drug X” by Smith et al., 2012 will be critically appraised. This article investigates…..

Also need to discuss why you are conducting this assignment

EVALUATION OF THE INTRODUCTION SECTION (6 marks)

2.1 Literature review (3 marks) Consider:
– Whether the author(s) literature search was adequate in terms of number, quality and relevance of references. 2.2 Aims or hypotheses (3 marks)

Consider:

  • –  What was the question asked?
  • –  Was the question clearly stated?
  • –  Was the question focused in terms of the population, intervention and outcome?

EVALUATION OF THE METHODS SECTION (20 marks)

3.1 Subjects (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  Who were the participants?
  • –  If the participants were representative of the population under study.
  • –  How the participants were selected for inclusion in the study.
  • –  If the sample was adequately described.
  • –  If the sample size was appropriate and adequately representative of the target population.
  • –  If the sampling mode was appropriate.
  • –  If bias was evident in the selection of the participants.
  • –  If participant consent was obtained.

3.2 Apparatus/instrumentation (2marks) Consider:

©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 7

  • –  What type of instrumentation was used?
  • –  If the validity and reliability of the instrumentation was established. 3.3 Control group/s (3marks) Consider:
    • –  If there was a control group.
    • –  If the use/non use of a control group was consistent with the study strategy

employed.

  • –  If the control was a placebo or alternative/normal treatment.
  • –  Was the control “treatment” adequately described?
  • –  If no control, why?
  • –  If there were ethical issues in using a control group.

3.4 Subject assignment (3 marks) Consider:

  • –  How the participants were allocated to the treatment groups.
  • –  If the allocation was random.
  • –  Whether the method of allocation was adequately described.
  • –  If there were any differences between the groups at entry to the study reported.
  • –  If any differences reported might explain any outcome/s (confounding)

3.5 Treatment parameters (3 marks) Consider:

  • –  If all treatments given were adequately described.
  • –  If the settings were adequately described.
  • –  If qualifications and/or training of administering personnel indicated.

3.6 Rosenthal & Hawthorn effects? (4 marks) Consider:

  • –  What are these effects?
  • –  If the authors addressed these effects, and if so, how?
  1. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS SECTION (Total 15 marks)

4.1 Tables and graphs (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  If tables clearly identified.
  • –  If table headings were adequately described and any abbreviations clearly noted.
  • –  If the axis of graph were clearly identified.
  • –  If correlation used, was the data and/or correlation graph presented?

4.2 Selection of statistics (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  If any assumptions were made about the population distribution, ie normal/non-normal.
  • –  If statistics used, which category, ie descriptive/inferential?
  • –  If statistics consistent with population distribution.
  • –  If an effect size was discussed.
  • –  If “numbers needed to treat” calculation done.
  • –  If confidence interval quoted. What is its significance?

4.3 Interpretation of the findings (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  What were the study outcomes?
  • –  Were the authors findings supported by the results?
  • –  Did the authors make any inappropriate generalisations?

©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 8

  • –  If clinical significance was discussed.
  • –  If the clinical significance would outweigh any statistical significance.
  1. CONCLUSION (6 marks)

5.1 Internal validity (2 marks)
– Overall appraisal of the internal validity the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for internal validity) 5.2 External validity (2 marks)

– Overall appraisal of the external validity of the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for external validity)

5.3 Overall Quality (2 marks)
– Briefly discuss the overall quality of the article with reference to its strengths and weaknesses as outlined in the above sections.

  1. REFERENCES & Academic Writing (5 marks)

Refer to Think Academic and Referencing Guidelines.

**APPENDIX Include a clean copy of your selected paper here

Students are to critically appraise (in an essay format) their selected article according to the following headings and sub-headings. Please note that the sections in italics are guidelines only and are not intended to be answered in a question answer format.

TITLE PAGE (including name, student no, subject, class, lecturer, word count)

INTRODUCTION (3 marks)

Need to introduce your paper here with proper referencing (ie author and title). For Example: In this paper the article entitled “The therapeutic use of Drug X” by Smith et al., 2012 will be critically appraised. This article investigates…..

Also need to discuss why you are conducting this assignment

EVALUATION OF THE INTRODUCTION SECTION (6 marks)

2.1 Literature review (3 marks) Consider:
– Whether the author(s) literature search was adequate in terms of number, quality and relevance of references. 2.2 Aims or hypotheses (3 marks)

Consider:

  • –  What was the question asked?
  • –  Was the question clearly stated?
  • –  Was the question focused in terms of the population, intervention and outcome?

EVALUATION OF THE METHODS SECTION (20 marks)

3.1 Subjects (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  Who were the participants?
  • –  If the participants were representative of the population under study.
  • –  How the participants were selected for inclusion in the study.
  • –  If the sample was adequately described.
  • –  If the sample size was appropriate and adequately representative of the

target population.

  • –  If the sampling mode was appropriate.
  • –  If bias was evident in the selection of the participants.
  • –  If participant consent was obtained.

3.2 Apparatus/instrumentation (2marks) Consider:

©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 7

  • –  What type of instrumentation was used?
  • –  If the validity and reliability of the instrumentation was established. 3.3 Control group/s (3marks) Consider:
    • –  If there was a control group.
    • –  If the use/non use of a control group was consistent with the study strategy

employed.

  • –  If the control was a placebo or alternative/normal treatment.
  • –  Was the control “treatment” adequately described?
  • –  If no control, why?
  • –  If there were ethical issues in using a control group.

3.4 Subject assignment (3 marks) Consider:

  • –  How the participants were allocated to the treatment groups.
  • –  If the allocation was random.
  • –  Whether the method of allocation was adequately described.
  • –  If there were any differences between the groups at entry to the study

reported.

  • –  If any differences reported might explain any outcome/s (confounding)

3.5 Treatment parameters (3 marks) Consider:

  • –  If all treatments given were adequately described.
  • –  If the settings were adequately described.
  • –  If qualifications and/or training of administering personnel indicated.

3.6 Rosenthal & Hawthorn effects? (4 marks) Consider:

  • –  What are these effects?
  • –  If the authors addressed these effects, and if so, how?
  1. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS SECTION (Total 15 marks)

4.1 Tables and graphs (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  If tables clearly identified.
  • –  If table headings were adequately described and any abbreviations clearly

noted.

  • –  If the axis of graph were clearly identified.
  • –  If correlation used, was the data and/or correlation graph presented?

4.2 Selection of statistics (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  If any assumptions were made about the population distribution, ie

normal/non-normal.

  • –  If statistics used, which category, ie descriptive/inferential?
  • –  If statistics consistent with population distribution.
  • –  If an effect size was discussed.
  • –  If “numbers needed to treat” calculation done.
  • –  If confidence interval quoted. What is its significance?

4.3 Interpretation of the findings (5 marks) Consider:

  • –  What were the study outcomes?
  • –  Were the authors findings supported by the results?
  • –  Did the authors make any inappropriate generalisations?

©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 8

  • –  If clinical significance was discussed.
  • –  If the clinical significance would outweigh any statistical significance.
  1. CONCLUSION (6 marks)

5.1 Internal validity (2 marks)
– Overall appraisal of the internal validity the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for internal validity) 5.2 External validity (2 marks)

– Overall appraisal of the external validity of the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for external validity)

5.3 Overall Quality (2 marks)
– Briefly discuss the overall quality of the article with reference to its strengths and weaknesses as outlined in the above sections.

  1. REFERENCES & Academic Writing (5 marks)

Refer to Think Academic and Referencing Guidelines.

**APPENDIX Include a clean copy of your selected paper here

Additional Files:

Randomized-Controlled-Clinical-Trial-of-Zinc.pdf

SKU: randomized-controlled-zinc-supplementation-and-hiv Category: