Overview

This assessment item requires you to undertake a mini / abridged systematic review (a special type of literature review) on an intervention related to COVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2. As you are required to select your own topic, significant assistance is available during workshops one and two.

When completing this task, you are required to apply the core principles of evidence-based clinical practice:

1. ASK answerable question using the strategies outlined and practiced during the online packages / workshops (PICO).
2. ACCESS appropriate evidence by conducting a comprehensive academic database search for relevant published studies. You should appraise four (4) Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and / or non- randomised controlled trials. If you would like to select studies which are not RCTs / experimental studies, you must talk with your tutor prior to writing your assignment. All studies must be in English. Importantly, the purpose of this assessment item is not to exclude poor quality papers from your review, but to demonstrate your ability to appropriately appraise the studies based on their quality within your
3. APPRAISE the studies selected for their internal validity, impact and applicability (external validity) using the strategies outlined and practiced during the online packages /
4. APPLY the information to your clinical
5. AUDIT (evaluate) the effectiveness and efficiency with which steps 1 – 4 were carried out and think about ways to improve your performance of them next time.

Outline of your literature review

To assist with the layout / structure, a template is provided, and must be used. Your assignment must include the following sections and where noted, individual word limits must be adhered to:

A BACKGROUND of 400 words demonstrating your understanding the topic, nature of the question being explored and rationale for why the topic is important to review. The background section must be supported (and referenced) by high-quality evidence. There are no restrictions on the type of evidence used to support this section. This section must include (use subheadings as per the template):

• Description of the condition: the review should begin with a brief description, epidemiology of the condition being addressed and its
• Description of the intervention: A description of the intervention should place it in the context of any standard or alternative interventions. The role of the comparator intervention in standard practice should be made
• How the intervention might work: This section should include the theoretical reasoning why the intervention under review may have an impact on potential For example, by relating the drug intervention to the biology of the condition. You should refer to a body of evidence such as similar interventions having an impact or identical interventions having an impact on other populations. You must also refer to a body of literature that justifies the possibility of effectiveness.
• PICO question being explored: In a single sentence, state your PICO

REMEMBER, use the highest quality evidence available in this section.

A METHODS section of 150 words describing your search strategy must include:

• Types of studies included: For this assessment most students will use Randomised controlled trials or non-randomised experimental studies. An experimental study is one where the researchers intervene in the study / controls the exposure (i.e. Drug, treatment, intervention, etc.). In addition to the studies above, you may use Cohort or case control studies. If this occurs, you must have this approved by your This approval step will help ensure you appropriately appraise the studies.
• Types of participants: The disease or condition of interest should be described here, including any restrictions such as diagnosis, age groups and settings.
• Type of intervention: The intervention and comparison should be defined
• Type of outcome measure: Outcome measure of interest should be listed
  • Primary outcome: This is the primary outcome of interest you will be exploring in the paper (i.e. pain using a visual analogue scale).
• Search methods for identification of studies: This section will describe the methods used to search appropriate academic databases:
  • Inclusion / Exclusion criteria: This section will list all relevant inclusion / exclusion criteria used when identifying relevant Use dot points for the inclusion / exclusion criteria.
  • Academic database search terms table (NOT included in word count): a table describing which databases were searched, the detailed search strategy used and the number of search results NOTE: the table must outline all searches used for each database.
  • PRISMA Flow diagram (NOT included in word count): Within this section you are also required to include a PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram. See page six of this document and the online learning package from week three for more

Please note: If you search PubMed, this means that you have searched Medline (however this doesn’t count as searching two databases).

More information will be provided on the methods section and search strategy during first few weeks of the unit.

An INTERNAL VALIDITY CRITICAL APPRAISAL of 1,000 words demonstrating your analysis and synthesis of the four (4) RCT / non-randomised controlled trials (or other tutor approved study) that you have selected to answer your PICO question. Critically appraise the studies in-light of your discipline and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each study. When critically appraising your studies, it is essential to compare and contrast the quality of the papers.

You must NOT include any systematic reviews, case reports, case series, cross-sectional, narrative or qualitative papers in this section.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies: This is a critical component of the assessment. Your paper must systematically appraise each of the four studies selected using the intervention appraisal questions from chapter 4 of unit’s textbook (listed below). For each internal validity question you will identify if there is a high, low or unclear risk of bias and name the specific risk of bias/error (ie. Selection bias) impacted.

Also, you must also consider the potential impact of confounding and chance, overall study design strengths and weaknesses and any other factor that may have impacted the results.

Tip: In this section, compare and contrast your selected studies. Is one better than another? How? Why? What is the type and level of risk of bias for each study?

• Internal validity questions (risk of bias) – including summary of risk of bias table
  1. Was the assignment of participants to groups randomised?
  2. Was the allocation sequence concealed?
  3. Were the groups similar at the baseline or start of the trial?
  4. Were participants, health professionals and study personnel ‘blind’ to group allocation?
  5. Were all participants who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion, and how complete was follow-up?
  6. Were participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomised using an intention to treat analysis?
• Did the study have enough participants to minimise the play of chance?
• Is there a risk of confounding? Was it considered? How was it managed?

A RESULTS section of approx. 200 words. This is a vital component of the assessment. Outline a brief written summary (including statistical results) of the main findings of the effects of the intervention relevant to your PICO question. This section should directly answer your PICO question and not discuss all of the findings of the selected studies. Remember, do not directly copy the results section of your chosen studies; this is called plagiarism. This section will typically include dichotomous, continuous or time-to-event results.

A HOW MIGHT WE USE THIS EVIDENCE TO INFORM PRACTICE? section of 300 words which will address areas such as external validity and limitations of the appraised evidence. In writing this section, it is essential to consider if the results can be applied to your patients / your population of interest. If they can/cannot be applied, why? When developing this section, it is vital to take into account the internal validity and results sections above.

A CONCLUSION of 250 words, which provides an answer to your PICO question (must be supported by your paper). You should also:

• Summarise the main agreement/disagreement of the four articles appraised
• Consider if the body of evidence identified allows for a robust conclusion to be made
• Summerise the key methodological limitations of the studies
• Comment on the consistency or otherwise of the results within the four aricles appraised
• Identify any gaps or areas for further research and an overall perspective on the topic (informed by your review).

An AUDIT (reflection) of 200 words discussing the effectiveness and efficiency with which you completed steps 1

– 4 of the process. When completing the audit, consider your strengths and areas requiring further development. Please write this section in the first person.

A REFERENCE list using the QUT APA referencing style. Refer to the QUT CiteWrite resource for more information.

How do I critically appraise each study?

Your discussion section must adhere to the task sheet. You must answer the six internal validity questions, consider if the studies had enough participants to minimise the play of chance, summarise the results and consider how the study results might be used to inform practice. It is also important that you critically appraise all four articles together. For example: appraise the randomisation for all four papers, then concealment for all four papers, etc. For more information review chapter 4 of the unit’s textbook.

Significantly more information, discussion, activities and guidance is provided weeks 1 – 7 of the unit to assist.

 Submit draft version of your paper to check the similarity index

You have the opportunity to submit one (1) version of your paper to check your similarity report before the actual submission deadline. Submit the draft via the draft check Turnitin link in Blackboard.

Assignment submission

Your assignment must be submitted via the Literature Review Turnitin link by the due date/time (located in the submission of your FINAL assignment section). This is the only method through which assessments can be submitted. Only one (1) file can be submitted.

Your submission must be a Word document (docx or doc).

Please note: you MUST submit the final version of your paper via the “Literature Review” Turnitin link in Blackboard. If your paper is not submitted via the “Literature Review” Turnitin link by the due date/time, it will be deemed to be a non-submission, and a result of zero (0) will automatically be recorded. Any submission uploaded using the “Draft Submission” link will not be considered.

Ensure that you understand QUT’s policies on academic misconduct and assessment submission.

If your application for extension is denied or not approved by the due date, submit the work that you have completed. The unit coordinator is NOT able to approve extension or deferment. Failure to submit the assessment item by the due date and time will result in a score of zero (0).

Style, language and formatting

Your paper must conform to the following standards (marks are deducted for non-compliance):

1. Line spacing 0 (excluding tables and reference list).
2. Standard page
3. Left justified
4. All sections of your paper, EXCEPT the audit section, must be written in third
5. You are encouraged to write the AUDIT section in first
6. English (UK or Australian)

How will your paper be marked?

Markers use the task, marking and criteria sheet (this document) to evaluate your paper.

Your papers will be marked electronically via Turnitin. Once all papers have been marked, results and written feedback will be available via Turnitin. It is anticipated that you will receive your results in week 12.

Seeking assistance

Each of you will enter this unit with differing levels of experience. To assist in developing your capabilities, we will provide you with the following:

1. Review assessment requirements during online packages and
2. Online packages 1-5 and workshops 1-4 focus on the knowledge and skills required to successfully complete this
3. Opportunity to answer individual questions during set
4. Dedicated Blackboard discussion
5. Opportunity to attend an assessment 1 drop-in session in week 

 PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram (EDITED VERSION) 

Adapted From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 

For more information and the flowchart template, visit www.prisma-statement.org.

 Frequently asked questions

Is the assessment item a “standard” literature review (ie. As outlined in the QUT CiteWrite document)?

No, while it is a literature review, and quite a number of components of the task are similar to a “standard” literature review, it is not exactly the same. This assessment task should be viewed as a mini or abridged systematic review.

It is also important to remember that a key component of the task (40% of the marks) relates to the:

• Critical evaluation of the methodological quality and level of evidence; AND
• Synthesis and analysis of the study

During the first few weeks of the semester, significantly more information will be provided to assist you in understanding the requirements. Opportunities will also be provided to discuss any questions that may arise.

Do you need to include a written section in the methods component, or do you just include the search table? 

No, use template. Ensure all components within the methods section is completed.

Do I include my search table and PRISMA flow diagram in my assignment or as an appendix?

Include everything in your assignment. Do not use an appendix.

Do I complete a PRISMA flow diagram for each database searched, or just a single one with the combined results?

Just a single one with the combined results.

Are the tables / diagrams required to have double line spacing?

No. Single line spacing for diagrams and tables is acceptable. The remainder of your assignment must use double line spacing.

If I use the EBP unit textbook, should reference it?

Yes.

Can I submit more than one document via Turnitin?

No,

What study types and / or evidence can I use in my “background” section?

You can use any type of evidence in the background section. As this is an academic paper, you should use the highest quality (appropriate) sources of evidence to support your discussion.

When I include my PICO question in the background section, do I use a table or write it as a single question?

Write it as a single question only.

Is the audit section included in the word count?

Yes.

Do I have to use the assessment template provided?

Yes. If you are unable to open the template, it is your responsibility to email the unit coordinator before the due date/time.

How do I select the four (4) papers I would like to appraise in the discussion section of my assessment?

As this is an abridged / mini systematic review, you are allowed to select any papers that both answer your PICO question AND meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Hint: What potential risk of bias does this introduce to your paper? This should be included in the limitations section of your paper.

How should I present my critical appraisal (discussion)?

Your critical appraisal must follow the submission template provided. It is also important that you critically appraise all four articles together. For example: appraise the randomisation for all four papers, then concealment for all four papers, etc.

Do we need to calculate statistical results that are not included in the paper?

No. If you have concerns about the statistical results that are/are not included in your paper, please talk with your tutor early and we will provide individual feedback.

Remember, you do need to calculate the loss to follow-up percentage as this is a secondary school level calculation.