For this critical appraisal, two studies will be used to evaluate this clinical question using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. The first study design by McConnell, Scott, & Porter (2016) is a systematic review (SR). The second study design conducted by Gutgsell et al. (2013) is a randomized control trial (RCT). The strengths and weaknesses of both articles will be assessed and compared. The generalizability and applicability of the results will then be evaluated.
Critical Appraisal of Study #1: Systematic Review by McConnell, Scott, & Porter …show more content…
This permits for visualization of the results and allows for the treatment effect of the individual studies to be understood. The Confidence Interval (CI) was calculated to be (0.68, -0.17). The CI did not cross one, which indicates a significant finding. Additionally, the narrow range of the confidence interval makes the results more precise. Of the three articles included in the SR, two were adequately powered to 80%. The RCT by Nguyen et al., (2003) did not include a power calculation. The p-value was calculated at 0.001, indicating that the results of the treatment effect were statistically significant (McConnell et al.,