Developing a Research Hypothesis

Abstract
Developing a researchable question is one of the challenging tasks a researcher encounters when initiating a project. In current clinical practice, both unanswered issues or when experiences dictate alternative therapies may provoke an investigator to formulate a clinical research question. This paper describes PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) criteria in framing a research question. Finally, it assesses the characteristics of a peer-reviewed article on urinary tract infections.
Part 1
EBM, shorthand for Evidence-Based Medicine, is a core aspect of the medical profession. EBM provides statistical analyses and matters of clinical concern. It is based on research, reading, analysis, and combining many papers generated within the medical fraternity. EBM applications based on research evidence and clinical knowledge and reviews of the system go a long way in improving clinical decisions. Usually, the PICO guideline is applied in developing a comprehensive, focused definition of clinical concern. In such a system, clinical problems are broken into four parts, i.e., the P: patient/problem; I; intervention; C: comparison; O: outcome (Yuan et al., 2019).
PICO is a framework for creating an effective clinical research question before commencing research. PICO is. A Mnemonic applied in the description of a sound foreground question in clinical studies. Such a question must identify the population or the patient targeted in the study, the intervention measures intended, how each intervention compares with another where applicable, and results expected. The PICO process begins with a case scenario, which helps formulate the research question. The question must relate closely to the case scenario and be designed to help find an answer. After a question is formed properly, the researcher is placed in a better situation to run studies and dig into the available literature for evidence that will anchor their PICO question (Eriksen & Frandsen, 2018).
Although there are other models, including SPIDER, SPICE, sample, design evaluation, and the phenomenon of interest, PICO is the most commonly applied technique in formulating research questions. PICO is used because of three advantages, i.e., i. it directs the questioner to concentrate on only what the patient believes to be the most significant matter and outcome, ii. It provides a platform for the next step, which is a computerized search. It does so by alerting the questioner to choose the keywords to be used in the search process, and iii. It directs the person asking to point out the problem, the intervention measure, and outcomes linked to the care extended to the patient (Eriksen & Frandsen, 2018).
The PICO framework encourages designing clinical questions based on the four categories of clinical data: i. the population referred to by the question, ii. The intervention used in the population, iii. the comparison criteria and iv. the results of the measure. Systematic review guidelines recommend PICO is creating strategies for search. Many modern systemic reviews rely on PICO for searches. Although PICO is often used to create the search strategy, it isn't utilized by the primary retrieval system running the strategy (Scells et al., 2017).
The PICO model is equally applied in structuring clinical questions concerning the synthesis of evidence, such as systematic reviews. PICO helps in ensuring that the relevant aspects of the research question are addressed. Therapy questions inform PICO. While it can be used to create research questions associated with a diagnosis or prognosis, it is not suitable for certain clinical data requirements. Apart from being used as a tool for developing concepts for research and clinical questions, the model can be applied to develop search (Eriksen & Frandsen, 2018). Considine et al. (2017) PICO should also be used for creating search terms related to the PICO question, Medical Subject Headings, and other relevant terms. It has been established in recent days that different review terms call for different question forms. It further points out that model and topic fits cannot be retailored. In other words, if a research question excluded intervention measures, then the other elements of the PICO will not apply.
PICO question
Is ibuprofen more successful than paracetamol in relieving fever in children?
Part 2
Basmaci, R., Vazouras, K., Bielicki, J., Folgori, L., Hsia, Y., Zaoutis, T., &Sharland, M. (2017). Urinary tract infection antibiotic trial study design: a systematic review. Pediatrics, 140(6).
How the selection of the article was made
A systematic review was done based on the recommended Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Preferred Reporting Items for systematic reviews. Medline, Cochrane, and Embase central databases from 2015 to 2020, October were used for the search. Medical subject terms and free text for \\\"urinary tract infections\\\" were used, including 'clinical trials\\\" \\\"therapeutics\\\" in children aged amid 0 and 18 years. The search was limited to the period from 2015 and after. The period's choice was based on the view that earlier reporting was not complete because there was no standardized reporting framework. There was no language restriction used. The search used randomized trials in which antibiotic efficacy and antibacterial agents in children with acute UTI were noted. The research does not include 1) studies in which focus was exclusive on clinical infection symptoms such as UTI that is not complicated, lower UTI, cystitis, recurrent UTI, and UTI that arises because of pathogens that are inconsistent s outlined by FDS guidance such as viral, parasitic, fungal or STIs; 2) studies that incorporated patients presenting underlying conditions such as diabetes, spinal cord injury UTIs among others, and 3) Studies which only focused on antibiotic prophylaxis pharmacokinetics, long term endpoints or safety as a result of lack of treatment evidence efficacies on infection resolution. The search incorporated trials on a wide range of infections when specific information on the \\\"pyelonephritis,\\\" \\\"complicated UTI,\\\" or\\\" febrile UTI\\\" results could be pointed out. The inclusion of studies was done only if there was information related to age. We described children as those between age 0 and 18 years, plus neonates (Basmaci et al., 2017).
This review article is systematic. It focuses on a specified clinical concern, does a complete literature review rules out studies that were done poorly, and tries to recommend practice based on flawless studies. Systematic reviews only incorporate qualitative or experimental studies and usually use randomized control trials.
How this is a peer-reviewed article
A systematic review primarily offers a complete summary of scholarly literature relevant to a given research topic or question. An expert panel usually crafts such a review after considering information from published and unpublished studies. Since it is comprehensive, it is distinct from traditional literature reviews, limited in scope regarding the amount of research evidence. Such evidence is also typically presented from the perspective of a single author. Systematic reviews are a brainchild of the biomedical fraternity and now form evidence-based Testing and Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice. Systematic reviews incorporate the steps below. A systematic review starts with deconstructing the research question using population, comparator, intervention, and outcome. These elements constitute the foundation for search algorithms. A protocol is generated to describe definitions, search strategy, search strings, exclusion, and inclusion synthesis approach. The protocol is piloted, and peers are reviewed. Such a step may trigger revising the search strategy. The next step is to run a systematic search. Information is retrieved from websites of institutions and academic databases. All the studies unearthed at this point are included. However, after that, the studies retrieved are subjected to screening to determine whether they are relevant to the title, abstract, and complete text using predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria. Several researchers conduct the screening process because it is voluminous. All researchers may screen the same studies and compare outcomes (Fu, & Hughey, 2019; Strnadová& Walmsley, 2018).
The last stage involves extracting qualitative and quantitative data that is relevant to synthesize the evidence provided. Sometimes, a meta-analysis is done for comparing quantitative and qualitative outcomes. There is always peer review at various stages for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are also registered with various networks from research such as the Campbell Collaboration and Cochrane. Registering reviews help reduce bias, cut down on duplication of the efforts various groups make in research and keep the systematic reviews updated. Registration also avails libraries for ongoing systematic reviews. Although most of the systematic reviews use the outlined steps, some reviews referred to in this paper employed a level of flexibility by complying with the tenets of the systematic review approach (rigor, transparency, and replicability) while still readjusting the protocol when and as needed, even after the piloting stage (Fu,& Hughey, 2019; Strnadová& Walmsley, 2018).
There are two main types of systematic reviews. There are the ones on overviews and interventions of observational data, and those on genetic data meta-analyses, which form the greater proportion. It is possible to conduct systematic reviews when there multiple related studies and a need, to sum up, the research outcomes available from the various articles to come up with the best possible evidence. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evidence are regarded as the best in guiding clinicians to make decisions and policies in healthcare (Misra& Agarwal, 2018).
A systematic review is thorough, can be replicated, and transparent. It is applied in many healthcare settings to direct management, decision-making, and evidence-based practice policies. A detailed protocol guides systematic reviews. It has definite exclusion and inclusion criteria to guarantee a comprehensive review of the literature targeted. Protocols for review are shared and commonly published as peer-reviewed pieces before undertaking the review to encourage critiquing and subsequent suggestions. Systematic reviews are effective in synthesizing knowledge on an empirical issue by analyzing data from a broad range of sources. The study question at hand is methodological and theoretical, but not empirical. However, with broad-based literature sources, a systematic review is effective and thorough (Belcher et al., 2016).
Importance of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed articles for research
Articles from peer-reviewed sources are much more reliable compared to those that are from other sources. Peer-reviewed articles are more dependable because they are subjected to experts who give feedback t the authors. The resultant article represents the best practice in the relevant field, thus being an authoritative source. Top tier journal articles are great because they are thoroughly researched (Kelly, Sadeghieh&Adeli, 2014).
Peer review is seen as a process of screening academic works by exposing it to critique by other scholars in the field. It encourages authors to embrace acceptable highest research standards and control information spread in a given discipline. These measures are meant to restrict unwarranted claims, crude interpretations, and personal perspectives from being published unless subjected to the relevant sieves. Academic writing and peer review go hand in hand in modern science. Peer review also helps make sure that published papers in science journals respond to meaningful questions and provide accurate conclusions informed by professionally run experimentation. Low-quality manuscripts have become common in the modern-day. Thus, peer review helps in filtering them. Owing to peer review's trusting nature, it is a critical basis for building knowledge in a cumulative and stepwise fashion (Kelly, Sadeghieh&Adeli, 2014).
Knowledge is ordinarily built by reacting to the ideas of those who precede us across all disciplines. Scholarly articles ensure that they provide verifiable sources of the information provided. Scholarly pieces also attempt to point out and discuss the merits and demerits of alternative viewpoints for the stands they take regarding a given research matter. Thus, truth assessment is made easier. The strengths and weaknesses of research outcomes are also clearly outlined. It helps those who have the subject knowledge and are starting to learn about it (Eastern Michigan University Library, n.d).
The web is an assortment of information sources. Although one may agree with the conclusions drawn in a paper found on the internet, there is usually no evidence chain provided to assess the paper's conclusions. Similarly, articles published in popular magazines may provide opinions and information, but they are not required to offer evidence supporting or refuting the conclusions drawn. On the contrary, scholarly articles must adhere to the laid-down approaches and research protocols in a clear structure that provides evaluation mechanisms for the author's postulated claims (Eastern Michigan University Library, n.d).
Five pages, 7 Scholarly references not older than five years
Explore a research-based article. Perform a database search on urinary tract infections. There are various levels of evidence. Select the article that has the best level of evidence. Describe how this article was selected and how it meets the criteria to be considered the best evidence level. Describe how this is a peer-reviewed article. Why is it significant to find peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed articles for research? Please attach your article. Write your paper as a word document using an APA format, 5 pages; include the title, abstract, running head, and reference page.
References
Considine, J., Shaban, R. Z., Fry, M., & Curtis, K. (2017). Evidence-based emergency nursing: designing a research question and searching the literature. International emergency nursing, 32, 78-82.
Eriksen, M. B., & Frandsen, T. F. (2018). The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(4), 420.
Yuan, X., Xiaoli, L., Shilei, L., Qinwen, S., & Ke, L. (2019, May). Extracting PICO elements from RCT abstracts using 1-2gram analysis and multitask classification. In Proceedings of the third International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics 2019 (pp. 194-199).
Scells, H., Zuccon, G., Koopman, B., Deacon, A., Azzopardi, L., &Geva, S. (2017, November). Integrating the framing of clinical questions via PICO into the retrieval of medical literature for systematic reviews. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (pp. 2291-2294).
Basmaci, R., Vazouras, K., Bielicki, J., Folgori, L., Hsia, Y., Zaoutis, T., &Sharland, M. (2017). Urinary tract infection antibiotic trial study design: a systematic review. Pediatrics, 140(6).
Misra, D. P., & Agarwal, V. (2018). Systematic reviews: challenges for their justification, related comprehensive searches, and implications. Journal of Korean medical science, 33(12).
Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R., &Zornes, D. A. (2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 1-17.
Fu, D. Y., & Hughey, J. J. (2019). Meta-Research: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. Elife, 8, e52646.
Strnadová, I., & Walmsley, J. (2018). Peer?reviewed articles on inclusive research: Do co?researchers with intellectual disabilities have a voice? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(1), 132-141.
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., &Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC, 25(3), 227.
Eastern Michigan University Library. (n.d.). Peer Review & Scholarly Sources: Why Use Scholarly Sources? Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://guides.emich.edu/scholarly/why