Overview of the First Study

Discuss about the Critical Appraisal of Two Scientific Research Studies.

A scientific research is a study conducted with an objective of contributing towards science or with an objective to find a solution to a scientific phenomenon (Wilson, 2012). The study is normally done in a systematic way by collecting data, interpreting the data, and finally evaluating the data and drawing conclusions from it. The person who does the study or the research of a specific phenomenon is called a researcher (Wilson, 2012).

Before a scientific research is carried out, proper planning and proper considerations must be put into place. The researcher must first develop a research question or identify the subject of study. This is followed by doing the planning of all the logistics such as the place where the study is to be carried out, and then stipulating the methodologies that would be used in the research (Cargill & O’Connor, 2013).

Critical appraisal is an important element in scientific research. Critical appraisal is the process whereby a research article is systematically and thoroughly scrutinized to determine its value, reliability, and significance with relation to a specific framework (Cargill & O’Connor, 2013). Critical appraisal is usually done by asking questions that can be answered. The questions are formulated and the medical literature cross-examined with an aim of finding answers.

The objective of this paper is to present a systematic analysis and to critically appraise two health research papers. The first research paper is a survey on chronic pain in Europe. The paper researches on the prevalence, the impact on daily life, and the treatment of chronic pain. The second research paper does a study on opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. The paper focuses on the side effects and the effectiveness of opioids on chronic non-cancer pain. In the course of the discussion, I will refer to the survey research paper as the first study while the research on opioids for non-cancer pain as the second study.

In the first paper, the study is about men and women aged 18 years and above who had chronic pains. The pain was considered chronic if the individual had experienced it for at least six months, if they had experienced the pain in the last month, and if the pain had been experienced at least twice per week. The second scientific research paper studies about the effects and the efficacy of opioids if used to treat non-cancer pain. The paper compared the efficacy of opioids with placebo and other drugs, the different types of chronic non-cancer pains that responded well to opioids therapy, and the most common side effects of opioid therapy.

Overview of the Second Study

In the inclusion criteria, the first scientific research paper considered both males and females aged 18 years and above. The duration of pain was also a factor considered in the inclusion criteria whereby only those who had experienced pain for at least six months, if the pain was experienced in the last month and if the pain had been experienced at least two types in a week. The accessibility to receive calls was also an inclusion criterion. Only those who were able to receive calls and respond were recruited. While in the second scientific research paper, the inclusion criteria considered reference lists for randomized controlled trials for orally administered opioids, or trans dermally administered opioids, or opioids that were administered through rectal suppositories for chronic non-cancer pain. Chronic pain was considered as that which had lasted for more than six months.

In the first study, apart from the researchers including men and women aged above 18 years, the research also included interviewers whose main roles were to call respondents. The respondents were from 16 different countries in Europe. The countries included Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Other people included in the study were translators who had four to thirty years’ experience in pharmaceutical and medical translation who translated English language to other language versions of some countries. In the second study, apart from the study authors, two reviewers (A.D.F. and J.A.S) were included in the study. The two independent reviewers screened all the abstracts and titles for the studies that could meet the inclusion criteria. A third reviewer (A.M.G) could also be consulted to clear any doubt that may arise due to controversies.

In the first paper, the study was original. The research method was detailed properly. The authors explained that the two questionnaires used for phone interview were developed by the help of NFO World Group, which is a research company. The paper also explains how the phone interviews were conducted and that they were conducted on Monday to Thursday between 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. and on Sunday between 10 p.m. and 6 p.m. to enable them get a wider variety of respondents. The results were also reported, interpreted, and well discussed as per the research objectives. The research was also original as it was found appropriate that chronic pain is indeed a major issue in Europe and should not be neglected since it was neglected. The healthcare providers should take the issues more seriously and mutual relationship should exist between the patient and the medical practitioner. It was also discussed that chronic pain should be considered as a disease on its own right, not just a symptom of an underlying disease, and be treated with the same urgency as any other disease

Analysis of Methodologies

Likewise, the second paper represented the methodology very well. The guidelines of QUOROM for meta-analysis reporting were followed. Search of literature was done up to May 2005 through the OVID interface such as MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists of articles, textbooks, and reviews were also reviewed. Studies were scored from 0 to 5 using the Jadad and colleagues instrument. The results of the data were also well represented and interpreted in a systematic way according to the objectives of the study. However, the study did not seem to make any new contribution to the scientific field since the researchers concluded that they were hesitant to declare the efficacy of opioids with other drugs since the sources they reviewed did not compare opioids with other drugs adequately (Hammersley, 2013). Due to the fact that the outcome of the second study did not bring any difference in the scientific field, the study can be termed as not original.

According to Chris A. Mack (2018) a scientific paper is considered to have a clear statement of the aims if the issue is focused on the measure studied or the population under study. The first study described well the intervention that was being considered. The issue under research was the prevalence of chronic pain in Europe and besides that, the impact on daily life, and treatment was discussed. The aims of the research were clearly written down and numbered. Likewise, in the second study, a clear statement of the aims of the research was communicated. The issues under research were the efficacy of opioids in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and the side effects. The second study however, compared the efficacy of opioids with other drugs and placebo. The first study did not make any comparison but rather the research was done with the sole purpose of demonstrating the prevalence of chronic pain, the impact on daily life, and the treatment.

According to Mellinger and Hanson (2016), a study design employed for a specific phenomenon must be appropriate. The study design must address the study question. In the first study, a survey was used to study the prevalence, the impact on lives, and the treatment of chronic pain. This study design was appropriate for the study question because the data was only needed one time. There were no any follow ups to be done and so the phone call interviews were an appropriate method. In the second study, a review of documents was done to determine the efficacy and the sides effects of opioid therapy. This study design was very appropriate since the study may have been needed within a short duration of time and doing the study physically on individuals would take long even to realize the long-term effects of the medication (Tracy, 2012).

Analysis of Inclusion Criteria

Additionally, a scientific research should be able to use appropriate methodologies to address the aims of the research (Wrench, Thomas-Maddox, Richmond & McCroskey, 2016). In the first study, the methodology employed was the use of a questionnaire and phone calls were used to contact individuals to respond to the questions. The surety of the appropriateness of the methodology employed cannot be explained since the authors did not document any reason to justify why they chose the phone call interview method and not the other methods of data collection used in quantitative research. Why did they choose interview method and not any other method? Why did they choose to do a phone call survey and not any other method such as online survey or any other? What rationale did they use to come to a conclusion that the phone call survey should be used but not any other? In the second study, the methodology employed was review of materials such as articles and textbooks. Similarly, the second study does not give any justification for using the kind of methods they used. Therefore, the surety of the appropriateness of the method of data collection employed cannot be explained to have addressed the aims of the research adequately (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2015).

Recruitment of subjects is also an important aspect in scientific research. The recruitment must be done in an acceptable way and should be appropriate to the aims of the study (Gupta & Kabe, 2011). Lack of proper recruitment of subjects may lead to selection bias causing the whole study to be compromised. In the first study, the recruitment was based on age, duration of the chronic pain, and those who could speak on the telephones. This recruitment strategy was somewhat biased since the cognitively impaired were locked out as well as the elderly in the nursing homes and those whose names were not in the directory were disadvantaged too. Therefore, the subjects’ recruitment in the first study were not a representation of the defined population (Baran & Jones, 2016).

In the second study, the recruitment strategy was based on those reviews that met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were that the article must have defined the study population who are the people with chronic non-cancer pain, those that were written in languages that could be understood by the team, and those that the outcomes quantified pain, function, and side effects. The second article therefore, gave a justification of their recruitment strategy and documented that the studies were sampled according to the inclusion criteria.

Analysis of Subject Recruitment

Flick (2017) states that another very crucial aspect of scientific research is data collection. A researcher must be able to justify the method of data collection and explain explicitly the method of data collection. In the first study, the researcher showed clearly that the data was collected using telephone interviews, and the interview format attached at the end of the report. The attachment of the interview format is an explicit indication of how the interviews were conducted. In the second study, the researcher demonstrated vividly that the data collection was from study materials and the researcher gave the examples of the study materials used. However, the study does not discuss the saturation of the data. At what point did they come to a conclusion that the data available was enough to make a conclusion? What criteria did they use to reach such a discussion? These questions are not addressed in the research study. Therefore, we can conclude that the second study did not collect data in a way that addressed the research issue (Flick, 2017).

Furthermore, scientific research must always have enough participants to minimize any chance of bias (Ryan, 2013). In the first study, the number of the participants were determined by NFO. The authors show clearly how the number of people to be screened from each country was calculated and the result determined following a two-step approach. This information is clear enough that there was a power calculation and so the study had enough participants to minimize sample bias. In the second research, the number of the study materials reviewed is not explained. The criteria for determining the sample size to minimize sample bis has also not been documented. With regards to these factors, we can conclude that in the second study, there can be no surety that there were enough participants to minimize sample bias.

Excellent representation of data and proper articulation of the main result are also essential in research. When data is represented properly, the reader is enabled to understand how meaningful the research is (Diviacco, 2014). In the first study, the data was represented in the form of measurements such as percentages and by use of graphs. This made the research easy to understand since the data was consolidated together each according to the aims of the study and represented in one single entity. Similarly, the second article used measurements to represent data such as percentages, graphs and confidence intervals. This kind of data representation also made understanding of the research easy.

Efficacy of Research Methods

Pruzan (2016), explains that ethical considerations in research is very fundamental. Issues such as consent and confidentiality of the participants must always be considered during and after the research. In the first study, the authors did not indicate whether they considered asking the participants for consent to conduct the interviews or any method or procedure that was used to get the consent of the participants. Neither did the authors indicate any form of confidentiality of the participants during and after the study. Therefore, we cannot conclude authoritatively that the first study considered the ethical issues of scientific research with much weight as it should be (Rovai, Baker & Ponton, 2014). In the second study, reviews of materials were the method of study and so no consent was needed from the study materials, nor any confidentiality (D’Angelo, 2012).

Data analysis in any scientific research must be rigorously analysed whereby the description of the analysis is in-depth and sufficient data be available to support the findings (Curtis, Murphy & Shields, 2013). The first study described the data well and the findings were all supported by adequate data. However, all the results presented were not analysed. The author did not give an explanation why the whole result represented was not analysed. This could lead to a potential bias when making a conclusion about their study (Roth, 2015). In the second study, the data analysis was done but not very vigorously. The data was presented according to the aims of the research but the analysis did not go deep into the analysis of each and every aim of the study. However, the authors acknowledged their lack of sufficiency and adequacy in getting viable information since they did not have enough confidence with the study material they reviewed. The authors documented that most of the studies they reviewed had numerous follow-ups and so the length of most trials was not extensive enough to determine the efficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain.

According to Goddard and Melvill (2011), in a scientific research study, statement of findings must always be very clear. The researcher must be able to discuss sufficiently the evidences that support their arguments and similarly those that do not support their arguments. In the first study, the researchers were able to describe the validity of the observed data for the prevalence of pain in Europe by discussing the evidences that were both for and against their argument. The discussion on the evidences was quite intensive because the researchers used several evidences. Similarly, the second study described the validity of the observed data by using evidences. The evidences documented were both for and against the argument of the researchers although one evidence did not actually compare with the observed data since one variable was not the same (Merriam & Tisdell 2015).

Any scientific research done usually have objectives and with a hope that the study will contribute into the scientific field on completion of the study (Bolner, Poirier & Edmand Pace, 2017). The authors should be able to describe how the study contributes to the current understanding or knowledge of that particular phenomenon and recognize any new areas that the research may be essential. In the first study, the authors found out the relationship between the patients and the medical practitioners were not mutual and so the authors recommended that the management of chronic non-cancer pain should be one of mutual partnership between the practitioner and the patient since most of the patient felt that practitioners did not care about their pain. The authors also concluded that chronic non-cancer pain should be considered as a vital disease entity, a health problem and not just a symptom of an underlying disease and given the same priority and weight as the other diseases. This is a significant contribution and a valuable research which allows for more research to be done to determine if chronic pain should really be considered as a disease in its own right.

In the second study however, the authors indicated that their research was not satisfactory because they were not able to get all the information they needed for the study. All the aims of the study were not met and the researchers recommended that more advanced investigational strategies needed to be done in order to assess other outcomes that they were not able to assess. Therefore, the second study was not valuable to research since no significant contribution was described. (Dharmapalan, 2012)

In conclusion, a good systematic research paper must contain clear statement of the objectives of the study, the research design and methodologies must be appropriate for that specific study. The recruitment strategy must be appropriate and any bias or potential bias must be avoided or minimised. Additionally, research ethics must be put into consideration, a clear statement of the findings should be documented in the research paper, and the research must always have an objective of contributing to the current knowledge of a phenomena (Mokatrin, 2011). However, these two research papers do not have good systematic research paper qualities. It must have been better if the justification of the rationale that the authors used to make all the decisions were documented and the sample bias prevented (Bunge, 2012). For example, the first study would have looked for the phone contacts of the nursing homes and spoken to some of the elderly people there. This would have minimised the sample bias.

References

Baran, M., & Jones, J. (2016). Mixed methods research for improved scientific study.

Bolner, M., Poirier, G., & Edmand Pace, J. (2017). RESEARCH PROCESS. [S.l.]: KENDALL HUNT.

Bunge, M. (2012). Scientific research ii. [Place of publication not identified]: Springer.

Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2013). Writing scientific articles. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Chris A Mack. (2018). How to Write a Good Scientific Paper. SPIE / International Society for Optical Engineering.

Curtis, W., Murphy, M., & Shields, S. (2013). Research and education.

D’Angelo, J. (2012). Ethics in science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

Dharmapalan, B. (2012). Scientific research methodology. Oxford, U.K.: Alpha Science International.

Diviacco, P. (2014). Collaborative knowledge in scientific research networks.

Flick, U. (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative data collection.

Goddard, W., & Melville, S. (2011). Research methodology. Kenwyn, South Africa: Juta & Co.

Gupta, A., & Kabe, D. (2011). Theory of sample surveys. New Jersey: World Scientific.

Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research?. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2015). Qualitative research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Mellinger, C., & Hanson, T. (2016). Quantitative research methods in translation and interpreting studies.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative research.

Mokatrin, L. (2011). Bayesian approach for sample selection bias correction in regression. American University: Washington, D.C.

Pruzan, P. (2016). Research methodology.

Roth, W. (2015). Rigorous Data Analysis; Beyond?Anything Goes?. SensePublishers.

Rovai, A., Baker, J., & Ponton, M. (2014). Social science research design and statistics. Chesapeake: Watertree Press.

Ryan, T. (2013). Sample size determination and power.

Tracy, S. (2012). Qualitative research methods.

Wilson, E. (2012). Introduction to Scientific Research. Dover Publications.

Wrench, J., Thomas-Maddox, C., Richmond, V., & McCroskey, J. (2016). Quantitative research methods for communication. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press.