Identifying Various Elements of a Research Article

The following questions pertain to:
Velayutham, S. G., Chandra, S. R., Bharath, S., & Shankar, R. G. (2017). Quantitative balance and gait measurement in patients with frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer diseases: A pilot study. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 39(2), 176-182. doi:10.4103/0253-7176.203132
http://proxy.chamberlain.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=122248443&site=eds-live&scope=site
1) What is the purpose of this research
Initially, subclinical shifts are anticipated; therefore, quantitative measures will prove immensely helpful when it comes to pattern comprehension. This will function as an easy-to-access market as well as help initiate timely rehabilitation.
2) What is the research question (or questions)? This may be implicit or explicit.
Determination of parameters’ subclinical connection may help differentially analyse discrete parameters concerning the conditions, in addition to facilitating the planning of fall prevention strategies.
3) Give a complete description of the research design of this study.
The study’s chief focus was studying the association of gait measurement with quantitative balance among Alzheimer’s and FTD (frontotemporal dementia) patients. The sample studied was males aged between fifty and seventy years. Data acquisition was performed via controlling of eight individuals in each cluster. Shapiro–Wilkins testing facilitated statistical examination whereas descriptive analysis was used for subject age, years of education, BMI (body mass index) and so forth.
4) What is the population (sample) for this study?
A total of 24 men aged between fifty and seventy years were divided between 3 clusters: 1) healthy control cluster; 2) probable behavioral-variant FTD (bvFTD) (diagnosed through amended consensus conditions); and 3) probable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) (diagnosed via AD association conditions).
5) Was the sample approach adequate for the research design that was selected and explain why.
Every demographic element such as height, weight, age and sex was documented. All participants were examined for “base of support” (BOS), by requesting them to fiddle with the BOS and make the tilted dais stable. A display screen was provided, which offered feedback regarding their platform’s position, and participants were directed to focus on the grid’s epicenter or innermost circle.
6) Describe the data collection procedure.
Biodex Gait Trainer helped gauge gait. Subjects were required to undertake a two-minute sensor treadmill walk at a pace comfortable for them. They were offered safety harnesses for preventing falls. Kinematic information collected included gait pace, step and stride, step CV (coefficient of variation). Following a couple of minutes’ rest, patients were reexamined, this time having to count back from hundred to one whilst working the treadmill. Eight sex- and age-matched patients within each cluster were compared against the control cluster. Standardized balance and gait evaluation was conducted for every subject.
7) How were the data analyzed after collection?
Shapiro–Wilkins exam helped gauge paratemer normalcy. Descriptive study was performed for age, years of education, and BMI (body mass index). Paired t-testign helped conduct within-group single vs. dual task analysis. One-way analysis of variance helped reveal inter-group disparities, which was succeeded by Bonferroni correction and post-hoc testing.
8) Discuss the limitations found in the study.
The AD cluster exhibited considerable total limits of stability (LOS) score deficit compared to controls while the FTD cluster depicted no general LOS deficit, except for some direction-wise deficits. The former demonstrated overall, front, back, forward left, backward right and forward right deficits while the latter exhibited forward and backward right deficits compared to the control cluster. Further, both the disease clusters took longer than control participants to finish the dual task. On the whole, for the AD cluster LOS, backward, forward, backward right, forward right and right deficits were considerably lower and dual task completion took longer in comparison to the control cluster. FTD cluster subjects revealed deficits in right and backward directions, besides taking longer for task completion as compared to control subjects.
9) Discuss the authors' conclusions. Do you feel these conclusions are based on the data that they collected?
The research indicated gait and balance issues among both normal aged individuals and FTD- and AD-diagnosed individuals when dual tasking, owing to the division of attention. Nevertheless, appreciably greater abnormality was depicted by AD and FTD patients. Further, these patients exhibited overall Ambulation Index abnormalities. FTD-diagnosed individuals depicted appreciable step cycle and stride length abnormalities not apparent among AD patients. Lastly, every balance aspect was found to be homogeously impacted among FTD patients, while AD patients’ mediolateral balance was most negatively impacted; whereas FTD patients typically tilt forward, AD patients normally tilt backward. Conclusions appear to be based on data gathered in the course of research.
10) How does this advance knowledge in the field?
Moderate though homogenous FTD cluster involvement may be accounted for by the subcortical-frontal circuits’ contribution to FTD imparement and sensory WHERE route’s contribution among AD-diagnosed individuals. The above disparities may help distinguish between FTD and AD, initially. Timely gait and postural stability exercises among FTD- and AD-diagnosed individuals, respectively, can avert future falls among patients. There is, however, a need for replicating the research with a bigger sample.
The following questions pertain to:
Pals, R. S., Hansen, U. M., Johansen, C. B., Hansen, C. S., Jørgensen, M. E., Fleischer, J., & Willaing, I. (2015). Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1), 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1071-1
http://proxy.chamberlain.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=her&AN=109884152&site=eds-live
11) What is the purpose of this research?
Examining the grasping and interpretation of advanced technology by clinical users is vital. This research concentrates on CAN (Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy) detection technology for use among diabetics. The research aims at examining doctor and patient views regarding the aforementioned handheld technology’s efficacy within a diabetes specialist center.
12) What is the research question (or questions)? This may be implicit or explicit.
Doctor and patient involvement, especially with regard to communication and interpretation linked to technology usage, is vital to novel clinical technology introduction.
13) Give a complete description of the research design of this study.
The study’s key aim was examining novel technology’s significance within clinical practice. It utilized the following information sources: medical consultation observations, CAN test reporter (i.e., doctor) interviews, and CAN test recipient (i.e., patient) interviews. Qualitative content analysis technique was applied for examining outcomes.
14) What is the population (sample) for this study?
Physicians working at a clinic serving 5600 type 1 and 2 diabetics in the Danish capital as well as patients at the clinic.
15) Was the sample approach adequate for the research design that was selected and explain why.
Every doctor (n=31) serving at the clinic was contacted via e-mail to take part in the interview. No invitee provided a response. Purposeful sampling helped recruit 8 doctors for additional follow-up. Choice of research participant was founded on clinical expertise levels, with highly experiences as well as relatively less experienced doctors invited. Patient participants (n=25) were contacted via telephone (phone numbers were obtained via their electronic health records), with a further dozen telephonic interviews carried out from 14th-31st January, 2014. The remaining thirteen patient participants were inaccessible via phone. No contacted patient declined participation.
16) Describe the data collection procedure.
Data was gathered from a greater Copenhagen-based diabetes specialist center parallel to Vagus™ device implementation. The research was intended to qualitatively add to the device implementation for examining user views on its adoption in the clinic, from November 2013 to January 2014.
17) How were the data analyzed?
A qualitative assessment of physican and patient attitudes towards CAN testing was performed. Field observations, interviews and other information gleaned was studied via content analysis for systematic interpretations of patient and doctor understandings and objectives. Study authors concentrated on the identification of actions or statements that indicated the technological frames of patients and doctors. This covers CAN test-related knowledge and beliefs with regard to clinical practice implications and test outcome communication.
18) Discuss the limitations found in the study?
Despite several relevant issues addressed by literature on the subject, researchers failed to examine specific relevant competencies and behaviors. Including more patients with positive CAN test results could improve physician insights into this patient population. But a surprising number of patients failed to remember being administered the test and, hence, couldn’t provide details of their test-related experiences. Further, physician participants probably represented a select group as not all invited doctors took part. Concerning analysis, the 3 key concepts recognized are closely intertwined, thereby rendering it hard to differentiate between them with respect to delineating doctor and patient technological frames.
19) Discuss the authors' conclusions. Do you feel these conclusions are based on the data that they collected?
Research findings indicate doctors found explaining test outcome meanings to patients as well as translating outcomes into meaningful therapeutic implications tricky. In several instances, patients were uncertain of what their test outcomes implued and failed to suggest their test outcomes would inspire behavioral change. For supporting technology application within clinical practice, dialogue-based communication of test outcomes to patients is recommended, including attempting to determine patient grasp of CAN technology purpose.
20) How does this advance knowledge in the field.
The research highlights the significacne of looking into physician and patient grasp of novel technology adopted within clinical practice. Recommendations will likely improve technology translation into actual clinical practice only if users collaborate within the specific usage context.