Synopsis (12 pts.)

1. What experience, situation, or subculture does the researcher want to understand?

The researchers are interested in finding out the best treatment and management method chronic fatigue syndrome.

2. Does the researcher want to produce a description of an experience, or a social process, or an event, or is the goal to generate a theory?

The researchers intend to describe an experience.

3. How was data collected?

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study, where they consulted various publications of RCTs for patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome.

4. How did the researcher control his or her biases and preconceptions?

Severely ill patients were excluded from the analysis, participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Also, outcomes were rated by participants. These ensured that the conclusions of the study would only reflect the experiences of the participants.

5. Are specific pieces of data (e.g., direct quotes) and more generalized statements (themes, theories) included in the report?

Yes

6. What are the main findings of the study? (10 Pts.)

The cross-sectional review suggested that there were beneficial effects to be realized from nutritional supplements, especially in CFS/ME patients with biochemically identified deficiency. Also, they suggested pacing to be the most rewarding intervention.

Credibility (18 pts.)

1. Is the study published in a source that required

peer review?                                                                       Yes     No     Not Clear

yes

2. Were the methods used appropriate to the study

purpose?                                                                             Yes     No     Not Clear

yes

3. Were the methods used appropriate to the study

purpose?                                                                             Yes      No     Not Clear

yes

4. Was the sampling of observations or interviews appropriate and varied enough to serve the purpose

of the study?                                                                       Yes          No          Not Clear

yes

5. *Were data collection methods effective in

Reproduced with permission from: Brown, S. J. (2018). Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

 

			2
obtaining in-depth data? yes 6. Did the data collection methods avoid the  possibility of oversight, underrepresentation,	Yes	No	Not Clear
or overrepresentation from certain types of sources? yes 7. Were data collection and analysis intermingled	Yes	No	Not Clear
in dynamic way? yes 8. *Is the data presented in ways that provide a  vivid portrayal of what was experience or	Yes	No	Not Clear
happened and its context? yes 9. *Does the data provided justify generalized	Yes	No	Not Clear
statements, themes, or theory?	Yes	No	Not Clear

Yes

 

10. ARE THE FINDGINGS CREDIBLE? All     Some    No

Clinical Significance (6 pts.)

1. *Are the findings rich and informative?  All     Some    No

All

2. *Is the perspective provided potentially useful in providing insight, support, or guidance for assessing

patient status or progress?                                                                All     Some    No  

All

* = Important criteria