Search Strategy Formulation (5 parts)
Read this article first – Literature Searching for Practice Research.pdf
1. Complete a Boolean search guided by keywords related to “GLP-1 agonist and anesthesia risk”. Use a minimum of 3 bibliographic databases. Select articles within 2017-2023, Level 1-2 Evidence (need to use this library link https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/search/advanced?vid=0&sid=7bdcabf7-f7e4-4b88-bee0-4167f9bc1de3%40redis
2. Describe the process for selecting studies: how studies were screened, and what criteria were used to include and exclude studies in the systematic review.
3. List the exclusion and inclusion criteria
4. Provide three examples of studies excluded and rationale.
5. Provide the number of documents identified, screened, and assessed for eligibility, and reasons for exclusion using a flow diagram (see PRISMA template and checklist attachments). The PRISMA Diagram GeneratorLinks to an external site. may be helpful. Use the tab "Create Flow Diagram" and follow the video guide below.
6. Attach the PRISMA Diagram to show how many relevant studies were found.
7. Refer to Chapter 5, pp204-236 in Polit and Beck. The textbook should appear as one of the references for this assignment.
Criteria:
1-Boolean Search
2-Which data bases and key terms used(remember to use the library link provided only)
3-Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.
4-Examples of excluded materials and rationale
5-Research studies within a 5-year span, Level 1-2 Evidence
6-Prisma
7- AMA format
8-references
PRISMA 2020 Checklist
Section and Topic |
Item # |
Checklist item |
Location where item is reported |
TITLE |
|||
Title |
1 |
Identify the report as a systematic review. |
|
ABSTRACT |
|||
Abstract |
2 |
See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. |
|
INTRODUCTION |
|||
Rationale |
3 |
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. |
|
Objectives |
4 |
Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. |
|
METHODS |
|||
Eligibility criteria |
5 |
Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. |
|
Information sources |
6 |
Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. |
|
Search strategy |
7 |
Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. |
|
Selection process |
8 |
Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. |
|
Data collection process |
9 |
Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. |
|
Data items |
10a |
List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. |
|
10b |
List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. |
||
Study risk of bias assessment |
11 |
Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. |
|
Effect measures |
12 |
Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. |
|
Synthesis methods |
13a |
Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). |
|
13b |
Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. |
||
13c |
Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. |
||
13d |
Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. |
||
13e |
Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression). |
||
13f |
Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. |
||
Reporting bias assessment |
14 |
Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). |
|
Certainty assessment |
15 |
Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. |
|
RESULTS |
|||
Study selection |
16a |
Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. |
|
16b |
Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. |
||
Study characteristics |
17 |
Cite each included study and present its characteristics. |
|
Risk of bias in studies |
18 |
Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. |
|
Results of individual studies |
19 |
For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. |
|
Results of syntheses |
20a |
For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. |
|
20b |
Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. |
||
20c |
Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. |
||
20d |
Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. |
||
Reporting biases |
21 |
Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. |
|
Certainty of evidence |
22 |
Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. |
|
DISCUSSION |
|||
Discussion |
23a |
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. |
|
23b |
Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. |
||
23c |
Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. |
||
23d |
Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. |
||
OTHER INFORMATION |
|||
Registration and protocol |
24a |
Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. |
|
24b |
Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. |
||
24c |
Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. |
||
Support |
25 |
Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. |
|
Competing interests |
26 |
Declare any competing interests of review authors. |
|
Availability of data, code and other materials |
27 |
Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. |
From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
image1.jpeg
,
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Records removed before screening:
Duplicate records removed (n = )
Records marked as ineligible by automation tools (n = )
Records removed for other reasons (n = )
Records identified from*:
Databases (n = )
Registers (n = )
Identification
Records screened
(n = )
Records excluded**
(n = )
Reports sought for retrieval
(n = )
Reports not retrieved
(n = )
Screening
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = )
Reports excluded:
Reason 1 (n = )
Reason 2 (n = )
Reason 3 (n = )
etc.
Studies included in review
(n = )
Reports of included studies
(n = )
Included
*Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers).
**If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools.
For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
,
Quick Guide to Bivariate Statistical Tests
Nursing Research
Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice
ELEVENTH EDITION
Denise F. Polit, PhD, FAAN President Humanalysis, Inc. Saratoga Springs, New York, and Adjunct Professor Griffith University School of Nursing Brisbane, Australia (www.denisepolit.com)
Cheryl Tatano Beck, DNSc, CNM, FAAN Distinguished Professor School of Nursing University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut
Vice President and Publisher: Julie K. Stegman Director of Nursing Content Publishing: Renee Gagliardi Acquisitions Editor: Mark Foss Director of Product Development: Jennifer K. Forestieri Senior Development Editor: Meredith L. Bri�ain Editorial Coordinator: David Murphy Marketing Manager: Bri�any Clements Editorial Assistant: Molly Kennedy Design Coordinator: Stephen Druding Art Director, Illustration: Jennifer Clements Production Project Manager: Barton Dudlick Manufacturing Coordinator: Karin Duffield Prepress Vendor: TNQ Technologies
Eleventh Edition
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer.
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer. Copyright © 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippinco� Williams & Wilkins. Copyright © 2008, 2004, 1999 by Lippinco� Williams & Wilkins. Copyright © 1995, 1991, 1987, 1983, 1978 by J. B. Lippinco� Company.
All rights reserved. This book is protected by copyright. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmi�ed in any form or by any means, including as photocopies or scanned- in or other electronic copies, or utilized by any information storage and retrieval system without wri�en permission from the copyright owner, except for brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Materials appearing in this book prepared by individuals as part of their official duties as US government employees are not covered by the abovementioned copyright. To request permission, please contact Wolters Kluwer at Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, via email at [email protected], or via our website at shop.lww.com (products and services).
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in China
Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data
ISBN-13: 978-1-975110-64-2
Cataloging in Publication data available on request from publisher.
This work is provided “as is,” and the publisher disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including any warranties as to accuracy, comprehensiveness, or currency of the content of this work.
This work is no substitute for individual patient assessment based upon healthcare professionals’ examination of each patient and