A critical review of aresearch paperThiscritical review will review the research paper, progressive resistance exercise in women withosteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial by Jorge, R.T.B et al(2015). This critical review will explore the strengths and weaknesses of eachsection of the research paper to determine whether this paper shows good orpoor practice and if it is suitable for academic references. AbstractInthis research paper, the abstract was a succinct summary of the contents of thearticle and explains the purpose of the research paper which is ideal and wassuggested by Parahoo (2006) who indicated that this section of the paper shouldbe stipulated by the journal itself. The abstract also included the objective,methodology, results, and conclusion which indicates that this abstract issuccinct and provides enough information to be useful for the reader showingthis as being good practice (Conkin Dale, 2005). AuthorsTheresearchers/authors that wrote this research paper show some indication thatthey have some sort of insight in this field. The author, Renata Trajano BorgesJorge, has shown to have some knowledge in this field due to his past studieshave been credible.
The author has a wealth of publications relating to thistopic such as body dysmorphic disorders, which indicates standing in the field.However, the author Marcelo Cardoso de Souza who co-wrote this research paperhas shown less knowledge in this field due to his past studies being aboutovarian hyperstimulation cycles and chronic stroke patients. This indicatesthat his main set of research is not about the osteoarthritis of the knee butis still in the field of anatomy which benefits the research paper.IntroductionThefirst subject written about in the introduction is commonly the problem of thestudy (Bassett and Bassett, 2003).
The introduction in the research papershowed very good practice because it gave the reader a firm sense of what thestudy was researching, it stated the purpose and rationale of the research andhelped develop the background for the study such as “The vast majority ofindividuals with osteoarthritis of the knee (80%) experience pain and limitedmobility, and 25% cannot perform major activities of daily living” (Jorge,R.T.B et al, 2015). Literature reviewTheliterature review of a research paper is present to help the research paper developthe research question whilst recognising the appropriate way to help data collection(Wilmaten Ham-Baloyi, 2016). In addition, the literature review demonstrates anappropriate amount of insight into the specific field/topic in question showingthat the knowledge is up to date.
Furthermore, a literature review shouldinclude studies that have been published recently, ideally within the last 5-10years. However, there are some exceptions to this, for example where there is alack of research or a study that is still relevant and shows good practiceshould still be used. In addition, the type/source of literature needs to be takeninto consideration. For example, primary empirical data from the original sourceis more desired than data from a secondary source. Because this research paper does not have aliterature review, it displays this paper as poor practice. The lack of aliterature review indicates that the authors didn’t demonstrate an appropriateunderstanding of the field because they didn’t read any studies in this field.
SampleTheamount at which the sample reflects the population it was taken from is known asrepresentativeness and in quantitative research, this is an important aspect indetermining the suitability of a study (Polit and Beck, 2006). The sample sizeis also important when looking at quantitative research as small samples are atrisk of being overly representative of small subgroups within the population.For example, if in the general sample of women, it was noticed that 69% wereCaucasian, then this would mean that this race would be over presented in thesample, thereby creating a sampling error. This risk of a sampling errordecreases when the sample size increases, therefore this research paper should haveused a bigger sample than 60 participants that were chosen. MethodologyInthe methodology, there are several important elements that need to be conductedto produce a good research paper. The way the data was collected is importantbecause in a quantitative study there are many different ways of collecting datasuch as interview, questionnaire, attitude scale and observational tools.
Thisresearch paper included a pain scale, observational tools, surveys and aninterview which indicates that this study can provide contextual informationneeded to frame an evaluation. Also using several methods could give the authoran insight into an issue that was caused, and this might require furtherexploration using other methods that weren’t previously used (Cohen, L et al, 2000).Thenext part of the methodology would need to have some details about theparticipants. This research paper clearly states the patient’s characteristicssuch as gender, age, race, year of education, paid work, body mass index (BMI),and a radiographic grading.
Since the study has given these specificcharacteristics, it indicates that the participants represented the researchwell. The selection process in this research paper was showed good practicebecause they were selected by telephone using a database of patients withosteoarthritis from the Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo (Brazil). Subsequently,this study showed good practice because it confirmed that the process ofobtaining ethical clearance was made and kept, the direct quote is “This study receivedapproval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federalde Sao Paulo (Brazil)” (Jorge, R.T.B et al, 2015). Also, this study used sealedenvelopes to ensure that the client’s confidentiality was good during the selectionprocess and the splitting of groups into experimental and control, this alsoindicates good practice because of the professionalism and respectable behaviour.Theresearch approach of the study was clear and rationale because most of theinformation gathered from data collection (conversation/interview/pain scale)was ideal for the participants they chose. To elaborate, the way they collectedthe data was ideal for the participants due to them being of a certain age andhave these disorders, the study took these aspects into consideration and putthe participant’s health ahead of anything, demonstrating good practice.
Themain piece of equipment used was the weights machine which was used y all theparticipants. The machine that they used was good because it measured theconcept being studied in an unwavering and consistent manner. Ingeneral, “validity is described as the ability of the instrument to measurewhat it is supposed to measure and reliability the instrument’s ability toconsistently and accurately measure the concept under study” (Kanis.
H, 2014).The instrument/equipment that they used is clear and unambiguous, this ensuresthat the proposed study has been conceptually well planned to show that this isgood practice for this study. On the other hand, the equipment used wasidentified briefly but was not described (function) enough and the study didnot mention how the piece of equipment was obtained or if it had been donatedby a commercial source demonstrating poor practice. ResultInthe results section, the statistical test used was found to be suitable andappropriate for the design. For example, the t-test was used so that theresearchers can obtain two sets of results for both experimental and controlgroup.
Also, this section demonstrated another sign of poor practice becausenot all the information is included in the tables, for example, the diclofenacwhich is one of the pain relief medications stated in the method section is notrecorded in the tables. This shows poor practice and lack of detail which wouldaffect the research paper quality. Equally important, is the readersunderstanding of the progressive resistance exercise (PRE). The reader wouldstruggle to understand these exercises because there are no diagrams of illustrationsused to help explain the PRE. Whereas the journal ‘Progressive ResistanceExercise with Eccentric Loading for the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis’ by Hernandez,Haniel J, et al (2015) shows diagrams of knee flexion and extension wheneccentric loading which provides the reader with a greater understanding of howto conduct these techniques. DiscussionThediscussion section should flow logically from the results section which it doesin this study showing good practice, it also should have related back to theliterature review thus placing the study into context, but this study did notcreate a literature review demonstrating poor practice. The significance of thefindings was stated, and this study showed good practice by stating itsstrengths and limitations for example, “The present study has strengths thatmerit consideration. A supervised exercise program was used with a gradualincrease in load and the inclusion of hip muscle strengthening for thetreatment of subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee.
Moreover, the subjectsunderwent an intermediate assessment during the study, which allowed for theidentification of precisely when the change began occurring. These featuresappear only rarely in other studies” (Jorge, R.T.B et al, 2015). This quotefrom the study also indicates that the research paper compared itself to otherjournals/papers to see where they lacked and where they excelled. Anotheressential point is that, the results have been used to support and refute otherstudies for example the article reads “In a systematic review of resistanceexercises for individuals with osteoarthritis of the knee, 56% of the studiesevaluated, found statistically significant improvements in pain, but most ofthe studies did not use a progressive increase in load and none incorporatedany hip muscle strengthening exercise” (Jorge, R.
T.B et al, 2015). ConclusionThisstudy didn’t have a section for the conclusion but in fact, it was integratedinto the discussion, meaning that there was no specific heading for it.However, the conclusion itself showed very good practice because it exhibitedsome fresh insight such as the time ofthe initial diagnosis was not included; the medication use before the studystart was not recorded; only women participated what makes impossible toextrapolate the results to other genders; the control group did not undergo anytype of intervention and no follow-up was carried out to determine thelong-term impact of progressive resistance exercise in patients withosteoarthritis of the knee. ReferencesThereference list should conclude the study with a full list of the reports, journals,articles, and books used and were referred to in this study (Connelly, Lynne M,2016). This reference list in this specific study showed good practice becauseall the sources were clearly cited, and they were all set out alphabeticallyand were in full bibliographic detail. The references used were from a widerange of works in the field means that the authors were wellread/knowledgeable. Inconclusion, after the comprehensive review of each stage of the research paper,there are many strengths and some weaknesses of this research paper.
Butoverall, I believe that this paper can be used by researchers as a referencewhen talking about osteoarthritis of the knee in females. Referenceslist:BassettC, Bassett J (2003) Reading and critiquing research. Br J Perioper Nurs 13(4):162–4Cohen,L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education 5thEdition. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 17 pp 306 – 316ConkinDale J (2005) Critiquing research for use in practice.
J Pediatr Health Care19: 183–6Connelly,Lynne M. (2016) References. MedSurg Nursing. Volume 25, Issue 3Hernandez,Haniel J; McIntosh, Valerie; Leland, Azadeh; Harris-Love, Michael O (2015) ProgressiveResistance Exercise with Eccentric Loading for the Management of KneeOsteoarthritis. Frontiers in medicine.
Volume 2Jorge,R.T.B., Souza, M.C.D.
, Chiari, A., Jones, A., Fernandes, A.D.R.
C., Júnior, I.L.and Natour, J., 2015. Progressive resistance exercise in women withosteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial.
Clinicalrehabilitation, 29(3), pp.234-243.Kanis,H; Schoormans, J. P.L; Green, W. S. (2014) Reliabilityand validity revisited. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 01/2014,Volume 15, Issue 1Parahoo K.
(2006) Nursing Research: Principles,Process and Issues. Macmillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke.PolitD, Beck C (2006) Essentials of Nursing Care: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization.6th edn.
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, PhiladelphiaWilmatenHam-Baloyi. (2016) Systematicreview as a research method in post-graduate nursing education, The University of Johannesburg, 21:120-128