Answer

Experience with the Appraisal of Systematic Reviews

Overall, my experience in researching and analysing the two systematic reviews was interesting. Initially, during the researching phase, I was challenged with many possible sources all of which fitted perfectly with my evidence based problem. However, after I was able to choose the two sources that I used, the process became bearable and interesting.

            I enjoyed looking at how different study designs and methodologies worked to complement each other’s gaps. Aspects that were unknown in one study were highlighted in the others thereby creating a trend of ideas that contributed significantly to my current research question. Since a majority of the study designs used were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), I was able to follow the procedures and even understand the findings of these studies. However, in cases where other methodologies were also included, I realised that it would get slightly confusing as to how the studies were linked. When I looked deeper into these studies, I was able to identify a trend in outcomes even when the methodologies differed.

            Although there were only two sources to be appraised, the time taken to critique the content was too much. That is because the reviews featured various studies which related to the current practice problem. Hence, too much data had to be screened to identify a relationship and pattern before determining the conclusion of the systematic reviews. Even though both of my articles recorded positive findings, there were points within the analysis that were not properly described. For instance, I feel like it would make the appraisal process easier if the authors considered how the different study designs and characteristics related to one another. That missing link triggered doubt on whether the study findings were indeed unbiased.