A meta-analysis on reducing the risk of significant bleeding with the utility of ultrasound


Order Now  your Research paper (Email us: writersestate@gmail.com)

Critical Reflection Papers

Subject Medicine

Topic A meta-analysis on reducing the risk of significant bleeding with the utility of ultrasound in guiding the insertion of a central line for adults patients with deranged or unknown clotting profile in the Emergency Department.

Paper details

The following PICOs is copied from a Best Evidence Topic from a UK website, however, the website is not a proper Journal, and the authors did not do a meta-analysis. I perceive this PICOs might be workable (with no or even minimal modifications) for a meta-analysis. Yes, as a smart researcher, I plan to steal their idea as my original idea. I welcome the writer to sharpen the PICOs below after literature search. Even the topic can be changed entirely to match the final output. The working aim is, to maximize the chance to get this product to be accepted by Journal and published. PICOs: In [adult patients presenting to the ED with deranged/unknown clotting profile], does [the insertion of a central line under ultrasound guidance] reduce [the risk of significant bleeding]? There are 6 key points I would like to emphasize for this product. 1. I am open to any modifications to ideas to the above PICOs, so long as the produced output is not a replicate of the existing research works (because in which case, I will be rejected Journal for not having originality), and the PICOs theme is related to Emergency/Disaster Medicine & Bedside/Portable Ultrasound. 2. The meta-analysis should be conducted with high academic quality aiming to be submitted by me as my manuscript to an International Journal (such as Annals of Emergency Medicine IF:5.008). 3. Searching strategy should cover all renowned Medicine related databases (e.g. PubMed, Medline, EMBase, Cochrane library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus). Grey literature must be hand-searched, and listed out clearly (e.g. hand-searched abstracts from conferences of specific scientific societies). (See attachments of some high-quality systematic review from American Heart Association as an example to guide the writer in producing the product) 4. Assessment instruments (e.g. GRADE) for evaluating methodological quality of included research studies and tool for assessing risk of bias for the included studies should be employed and clearly stated (I personally did not place restrictive criteria as to which tool to use (allow flexibility for the writer), so long as it is commonly used in other systematic reviews in the field of medicine). After all, it depends on which type of studies the writer finally searched out and included determines which tools are to be used. 5. Flow diagram according to PRISMA and the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews should be provided and followed properly. 6. Recommendations (with Level of evidence and class of effect size) should be made at the discussion section. (Updated references in interpreting the identified pattern or findings are preferred, however, in the search strategy, please include Years as many as possible)

Order Now  your Research paper (Email us: writersestate@gmail.com)

Critical Reflection Papers

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: