Answer

Reviewing Research Article on Bacterial Meningitis

The purpose of this discussion post is to review and rate the research article, “Clinical features and prognostic factors in adults with bacterial meningitis” written in 2004 by Van de Beek, De Gans, Spanjaard, Weisfelt, Reitsma and Vermeulen.

Rating of the Authors

Comments on the Rankings/Scores

I rated the method of research chosen by the authors and their conclusion regarding research findings with scores of below 4.0 (3.0 and 2.0, respectively) for various reasons. First, the authors do not mention the sampling technique used to select the study’s participants – patients with community acquired acute bacterial meningitis. It would have been a good idea to clarify the sampling method used because some methods, such as systematic sampling, have been found to introduce bias in the research study and lead to erroneous results. Second, the authors adopted observational study design, which again means that the findings are more likely to be biased as they are based primarily on the observers’ perspectives. Regarding conclusion of findings, the conclusion is too short and the authors fail to outline the study’s limitations that potentially affected the results, and neither they suggest implications for future research.

The authors scored 4.0 on the presentation of information and quality of writing because the article follows the conventional format/structure of research studies in the field of medicine. Notably, the article begins with the introduction, which delineates the problem statement and the reason for conducting the research study. In later sections, research methods, results, discussion and concluding remarks are discussed. Moreover, the authors employ the use of diagrams, tables and charts to summarize the information and make it easier to interpret. The authors, however, missed the literature review section which could have improved the understanding of the research topic. On the method of research, the ranking stood at 3.0 because the methods of data collection and analysis are discussed thoroughly.

How the Study can be Improved

There are various ways the authors can improve the research aspects with scores of less than 4.0. For instance, the method of research can be improved from 3.0 to 4.0 by clarifying the sampling technique used, preferably random sampling, and why it was appropriate for the study. The rating could also be improved by using a larger sample size since the researchers used only 696 participants, who may not adequately represent the population under study.

Lastly, the title was appropriate and effectively represented the information presented in the research article. In conclusion, I would rate Van de Beek’s (2004) article at 4.0 on fitness for publication. This conclusion is supported by the fact the article has been cited in 848 articles since its publication.