Critique of Research Studies Part - 3 Medicine Research Paper

Research Studies Critique- Part Three
Name
Institution
Research Studies Critique- Part Three
Quantitative Research Critique
Results
Data Analysis
Data in the study by Gill, et al. (2016) was analyzed in SAS version 9.4, which allows for powerful manipulation of data, and as such, it was appropriate for the number of groups being compared. Further, every research question was addressed as recommended by Moule, Aveyard, and Goodman (2017). The study only addressed type I error, where the researchers adopted a 0.05 two-sided type I error. However, the risk of type I error increasing as a result of testing the secondary endpoints severally was not controlled. Failure to control such a risk is serious because the researchers can end up rejecting a true null hypothesis.
The researchers also adopted the intention-to-treat approach in data analysis. A 0.05 two-tailed significance was used to test the effect of the intervention. This means that all randomized participants were included in the statistical analysis based on their initial assigned group. There is no indication that the issue of missing values was addressed in the study by Gill, et al. (2016) because the researchers do not mention whether there were missing values in the study. This raises questions regarding the data because missing values are common and can affect the credibility of the findings.
Findings
The study presented information about statistical significance, especially concerning the reduction of fall injuries, and precision of estimates was presented at 95% C.I. The findings of the study were presented in tables and graphs, which according to Moule, Aveyard, & Goodman (2017) is an acceptable way of presenting results for easy interpretation. Further, the results were presented in a manner that could allow for evidence-based practice (EPB) because the number of serious falls before and after the intervention was presented.
Discussion
Interpretation of the Findings
The researchers in the study by Gill, et al. (2016) discussed all the major findings and compared them with other studies that had sought to answer the same questions. All major findings were discussed in the context of reducing falls using physical exercises. The interpretations were also within the study limitation since the results outcomes were mostly based on fractures and injuries that resulted in hospitalization. The researchers further revealed that the study’s findings could be generalized to elderly people who do not have major functional disabilities.
Implications/ Recommendations
The researchers discussed the clinical implications of their study, indicating that reduction of fall-related injuries has implications in the reduction of costs and morbidity arising from falls. Such implications make sense, especially because the cost of fall-related injuries put a strain on the healthcare systems, and because nurses are always looking for ways to improve patients’ quality of life. However, the study did not provide any recommendation for future research, which is also important as opined by Polit and Beck (2016).
Global Issues
Presentation
The report by Gill, et al. (2016) was well organized, with every section clearly outlined and ...