Plus-Hex CLINICAL
Patients and the public benefit from constructive collaboration between academic medicine and pharmaceutical companies [ 42 ] . At the same time , medical leaders , public officials , public interest groups and others have raised concerns about the risks associated with the extensive financial ties that link the industry with the individuals and institutions that carry out medical research [ 42 ] .
In German et al . [ 40 ] , there is a conflict of interest as one of the authors ( Biourge ) works for the Royal Canin Research Centre . Additionally , German and Holden ' s posts are financially supported by Royal Canin . Furthermore , the diet used in the study was manufactured by Royal Canin . All this information is stated in the conflict of interest statement in the study , but the implications are not . Bias represents a significant flaw in the design of a study and can lead to invalid conclusions [ 43 ] . German et al . [ 40 ] may be biased as Royal Canin manufactured the diet , Biourge works for Royal Canin , and German and Holden ' s posts are financially supported by Royal Canin .
A literature review should reflect the current state of knowledge relevant to the study and include up-to-date literature [ 39 ] . However , this is not necessarily the case in German et al . [ 40 ] , which has references dating back to 1995 , although the majority of references are more recent . In Chapman et al . [ 7 ] , the oldest reference in the literature review is dated 2002 . As this is a reference from 17 years prior to the publication of the study , the author would argue that it is not recent or up to date . The semantics of the word ‘ recent ’, in general and in academic writing in particular , are not clearly defined , but the author would argue that a reference older than 10 years cannot be considered recent .
The conclusion should be comprehensive and supported by the findings . The researchers should identify any limitations to the study and outline any recommendations for further research and , if appropriate , implications for practice in the relevant field [ 39 ] . Neither German et al . [ 40 ] nor Chapman et al . [ 7 ] have a particularly comprehensive conclusion . However , their conclusions are both supported by the findings . German et al . [ 40 ] state limitations of the work , but this is not incorporated into the conclusion . This is also the case for Chapman et al . [ 7 ] . However , using the critical appraisal checklist in Woolliams et al . [ 44 ] , it is evident that both conclusions , although brief , are clear and based on the evidence .
Efficacy of nurse-led clinics in human medicine
Within this review are three papers that research the efficacy of nurse-led clinics in human medicine . Doherty et al . [ 45 ] utilised nurse-led care and usual care to discover the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nurse-led gout care in humans . Randall et al . [ 46 ] used a systematic review of research into nurse-led clinics for humans to
discover that nurse-led clinics have largely had a positive impact on patient outcomes , patient satisfaction and access to care , and mixed results on cost-effectiveness . Finally , Qvist et al . [ 47 ] used patients from the real world and patients from a clinical trial to discover that structured , nurse-led , hospital-based atrial fibrillation care appears to be effective , and patient outcomes in hospital-based , structured , atrial fibrillation care are at least as good as those in trial settings .
Most busy practitioners only ever get around to reading the abstract of a scientific paper [ 36 ] and , although abstracts of papers are sometimes poorly written [ 48 ] , the abstract should provide a short summary of the study . It should include the aim of the study , an outline of the methodology and the main findings . The abstract should enable the reader to decide whether the study is of interest to them [ 39 ] . It should convey the background to the study , with citable evidence outlining why the topic is a problem worthy of investigation [ 36 ] .
Doherty et al . [ 45 ] has an abstract , but it is not clearly signposted as such , making it difficult to find in searches . Both Randall et al . [ 46 ] and Qvist et al . [ 47 ] have an abstract that meets the criteria mentioned by Caldwell et al . [ 39 ] ( Figure 1 , overleaf ). Randall et al .' s [ 46 ] abstract incorporates background , objectives , methods , results and conclusions , while Qvist et al .' s [ 47 ] abstract incorporates objectives , methods , results and conclusions . They both incorporate all that is needed in an abstract . An abstract that meets the criteria is easier to find in searches and is more helpful to clinicians when deciding whether a study is of interest to them , both of which will save readers time .
Volume 38 ( 3 ) • June 2023
37