RESEARCH APPRAISAL

Quantitative Research Report Appraisal and Critique

[Instructor name]

Introduction

Gastroenteritis remains a major disease and problem to public health. Children are apt for receiving oral rehydration; however, they are also being provided intravenous rehydration. The study aimed to determine whether the intravenous rehydration was more important and feasible in haemodynamically stable children who had failed the oral rehydration and was the increase in such cases significant clinically (Freedman, Parkin, Willan, and Schuh, 2011).

CONSORT was established in 1998 which was the Consolidated SORT (Standard of Reporting Trials). It aimed to provide a checklist and a flow diagram which could substantially improve the reporting by clinicians so that the reviewers and practitioners could get accurate information regarding decisions of randomisation and management of patients in the study (Anderson and Yeats, 2010). Other models can also be used for nursing research critique, which include the Johns Hopkins nursing practice-based evidence model, collaborative model for knowledge transfer, and Ottawa model of research use (Houser, 2012). In community health promotion strategies include comprehensive approaches to health development being the most effective, settings offering practical opportunities for implementation of comprehensive strategies, and participation being essential to sustain efforts (Public Health Division, 1998).

British Medical Journal (BMJ) is a world-renowned peer-reviewed journal. Its impact factor is 13.471, and the location of the company is in London, UK. This shows that it is a trusted journal. The authors are professors and senior scientists based in Toronto. The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada, hosted the research. The authors are experts.

Title/Abstract/Background/Aims

The study was quantitative as it calculated measures and scores. The abstract was well-structured and showed all parts of the paper. The conclusion was that there were no clinical benefits of rapid versus standard intravenous rehydration.

The rationale to conduct the study was that there was an increase in use of rapid intravenous rehydration of children while there were no known benefits. Further, complications could arise with the use of such method. The study aimed to determine whether the children receiving rapid intravenous rehydration were clinically important compared to the conventional method (Freedman, Parkin, Willan, and Schuh, 2011).

Methods

Initially, oral rehydration treatment was given to the children. Then, they were given intravenous rehydration, and the performance of baseline biochemical tests took place. Finally, the clinical outcomes were measured. The allocation ratio was 1:1 for standard and rapid intravenous rehydration.

The recruited children were over 90 days old, had the diagnosis of gastroenteritis and had failed oral rehydration. The Hospital for Sick Children hosted the study. The interventions accommodated for changes in children's weight and tolerance. The intravenous rate determined the groups. Other children with vomiting were given only oral rehydration. The primary outcome of the trial was the rehydration of children measured on the dehydration scale. The measurements were taken after two hours of administering of the treatment. The prolonged treatment was the secondary outcomes measured as in-patient admission, time to discharge, and physician's comfort with discharge at 2 and 4 hours.

The determination of sample size was done as the ability to measure the outcome with ...