Skip to Main Content

Advanced Nursing Research

Research Studies

\

  1. ​Systematic review of randomized control trials -- through a statistical process called meta-analysis, the data from all research studies examining the same medical inquiry can be combined into one conclusion.
     
  2. Randomized controlled trials -- is a research study design that best determines if a medical intervention is safe and effective. The distinguishing features of a randomized control trial are:
    • Participants in the research study are randomly assigned either to a control group or to an experimental group that receives the treatment in question. After the data has been measured and the outcomes determined, the two groups can be compared to determine how well the intervention works.
    • The random assignment of participants into either of the two groups strongly reduces bias in the study design. Participants begin treatment after the study begins, not beforehand.
       
  3. Controlled trials -- a research study that determines whether a medical intervention works based on the comparison between a control group and an intervention group that receives the treatment in question. Participants are not randomly assigned in one or the other group.
     
  4. Observational studies -- collects data from participants after they have begun or even completed their medical treatment. The natural course of the treatment had taken place without the researcher's intervention and does not involve control groups. Cohort, case-control, and longitudinal studies are all examples of observational studies.
     
  5. Case studies, anecdotes, and opinions:
    • Case studies -- is an observational study that follows only one patient.
    • Anecdotes and opinions -- an expert practitioner may have an account of their experiences.

 

Information from https://www.nice.org.uk/glossary. 

Reading a research article is strenuous! Here are some questions that you can ask yourself to better comprehend the material:

  • What is the author’s purpose in writing this article or book? To publish research? To attack another author’s position? To defend an embattled position?
  • Is the purpose clear throughout?
  • Does the author have more than one purpose? Is one less obvious than another? Are there clear-cut motives for the separate purposes?
  • Does the author analyze a central problem of the discipline? In your special area?
  • Does the author raise questions appropriate to your work? To the field in general?
  • Do you agree with the author’s conclusions?
  • Do you agree with the author’s premises?
  • Are the arguments supported by examples from research or “life”? Are key arguments stated and clearly supported? Are the examples appropriate to the arguments they support? Does the author use primary or secondary research to support the arguments? Are the authorities cited appropriate to the subject matter (i.e., are they standard or obscure, academic, or popular)? Are cited passages legitimate support for the argument or are they distorted by being quoted out of context? Are all statistics clear, accurate, and verifiable?
  • Do the arguments flow smoothly and logically from one to the next? Is any key point logically weak ?
  • Is the author’s methodology rigorous? Is the author aware of the implications that may arise through the methodology?
  • Is the author recognized as an authority? Is the article or book within the author’s area of expertise?
  • Is the article published in a reputable journal? Or is the book published by a reputable press?
  • Does the author or journal have any known editorial position?

 

Information from The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/faculty-resources/classroom-handouts/checklist-for-analyzing-research-material

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License.