ance
Hi there!
Thanks for reading this. Apologies in advance for a bit of a tight deadline, but I have a few other papers on my hands and I want this out of the way whilst I’m working on other stuff.
This work is part of a wider 5000 word Research Methods review which is in the style of a Systematic Review. Thus, it includes a decently detailed summary, synthesis and comparison of 5 (five) papers which I will also provide.
What would be needed of you kind person is exloration of Results, Discussion and Research Recommendation/Proposal sections as typical in a standard meta analysis/systematic review paper. (Introduction and Methods are not needed here, so you can go straight into action 🙂 )
The whole paper is on chiropractic care/spinal manipulative therapy and adverse effects. The five provided papers found no correlation between the two – THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES (RCT, Case-crossover), different populations tested, different countries. Hence there is a lot to explore when it comes to comparison of data and also style of research. This, in addition, might provide more opportunity to explore more on limitation of the papers and propose a more reliable research in the “RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS” section.
In terms of word count, Results and Discussion should definitely take a larger chunk of it. If you’re familiar with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, it would be awesome if you could assess the 5 papers for bias as well (see if the word count and time allow).
Here are some more details regarding to what is needed:
1) Results
The results section should report the extracted data from your selected 5 papers. You should develop a study characteristics table which summarizes the key information about each paper, which you should reference in this section, but should be put into the appendix. The results section should be presented as a synthesis of results arranged as subheadings of themes that were identified. This section should not only report the results of individual studies, but also demonstrate a good understanding of the literature and raise key issues identified in the synthesis of the studies. You should also demonstrate a thorough critical evaluation of the literature that links to the aim and objectives of the review. You should refer to the critical appraisal table, which should be put into the appendix. Do not repeat what is included in the critical appraisal table but synthesize the information in the text.
Study selection – Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review in the form of a PRISMA diagram
Study characteristics – Present characteristics in the form of a table
Quality assessment – Present data on the quality of each study
Synthesis – Present result of synthesis
2) Discussion
The discussion section should include a summary of evidence, with a clear link to the aim of the review. The discussion should discuss how the themes identified in the results section compare with other wider research literature. The discussion is summarizing and evaluating evidence about your topic, pointing out similarities and differences and offering possible explanations for any inconsistencies uncovered. Any controversies in the literature, strong agreement or disagreements, methodological issues, inconsistencies or recurrent themes and ideas should be discussed here. You should provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future practice and/or research. Discussion of the limitations of the review should be stated.
Summary of Evidence: Summarise the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome
Limitations: Discuss limitations at study and outcome level
Conclusions: Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research
What do I include in my discussion?
The point of the discussion is to actually address the research question. The main components of your discussion are:
The main findings of the review. Do not repeat the results section, just remind the reader of the overall key findings.
Outline how the findings fit with the previous literature. Do your findings contradict existing literature? Are they supportive of the research you included in the introduction? Do the findings make sense when interpreted with wider literature?
Consider the strengths and limitations of the included studies. If the quality of the studies is good, then you will have more confidence in the results and conclusion. How consistent are the findings across the different studies?
The end of the discussion should summarise the conclusions that can be drawn from your review and the implications of the review (clinical, educational, research, or policy). 
3) Research Recommendations and Protocol
Research questions/aims – based on the literature review what research ideas have emerged. This section should clearly state a research aim and research question with objectives that should be investigated.
Study design – Identify the method that would need to be employed to answer the research question. Noting any procedures, interventions, or models that would you need to consider for the research. Cite key literature to support your choice of method.
Participants – Identify the potential participants of the study, you should note the population that you need to answer the research question.
Outcomes – Discuss the proposed outcomes of the study and potential measurements of the outcome. Key literature should be cited to support your approach where applicable.
This is basically a RESEARCH METHOD comparison paper more or less. Obviously, it all applies to the content and the topic given.
I will upload the FIVE selected papers (and will label them with NUMBERS in front of the title).
I will also give an example of a Systematic Review with the Discussion part similar to what is needed (no need to mention confidence intervals, etc.), but a heavier emphasis should be on the research methods part: https://www.cureus.com/articles/4155-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-chiropractic-care-and-cervical-artery-dissection-no-evidence-for-causation
In addition, I will give a couple of papers which form a wider literature which you can use to compare the extracted data to:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2045-709X-20-30
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29371112/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161475413000687
Thank you so much in advance!!! 🙂
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|