Nursing research – Q&A

Contents

Question no. 7. 2

Question no. 8. 2

Question no. 9. 3

Question no. 10. 3

Question no. 11. 5

Question no. 7

According to the question the authors identified the strengths and weaknesses of the research methods as they believed that the study done by Singh et al was withdrawn by the British Medical Journal because it was unclear about the quality of the study included by Singh in the review paper of him in 1997. Now this study excludes the analytical sensitivity which did not consider the study at lower level or risk of bias. It is also important to make sure that all the results must support by the sensitivity analyses. The main assessment of the review was heterogenicity by using Cohran’s test. The understanding or the statistical degree of heterogenicity would have altered if I² test was used in the assessment present in the analyses. In the example provided by the author proofs that the study review of omega 3 fats and worry describes less about the differences between the study of dart 2 and omega 3 trials.

Question no. 8

A.)  The table of summary was included along with the review which describes more over the risk of oily fish, the harm caused by the omega 3 and analysis of the table is given. The table is done by taking some number of people and according to their diet it has been shown that omega 3 is not harmful whereas it’s beneficial in some case.

B) The type of analysis used here is both the meta-analysis along with the narrative summary which explains the factors point wise and also describes them in which they can be beneficial. The Meta analysis and its effects are described here to increase the omega 3 fats in case of combined cardiovascular events as well as on total mortality.

C.)Yes the studies are similar enough to combine results because the type of the treatments used and the sample characteristics of the results are more over tally with the study table used to represent the beneficial or harmful effects of the omega 3 fats.

D.)The reviewers did not agree with each other as some explained the additional or increase in omega 3. Another reviewer suggested the review to DART2 study was not included. Some reviewer found no significant effects in adding omega 3 in case of non-fatal myocardial infarction. The reviewers initially agree to one point that omega 3 is beneficial to people.

Question no. 9

A)    The conclusion doesn’t provide a clear image that dietary or supplementary omega 3 fats increases the amount of mortality or any of the cardiovascular events, cancers in people, and cardiovascular disease among the general population. It also not provides any significant events for any secondary outcome. So it has been studied that people can eat oily fish or can take supplementary resources which causes no risk in any of the cardiovascular damage.

It is been recommended that people can take more omega 3 fats, as it reduces myocardial infractions.  It also have been recommended that people have taken omega 3 fats they are more prone to angina but they do not have any myocardial infractions, yet new trials should be reviewed because this can be incorrect.

B) Grading schema used as such in a priority sense. Grading was done whether oily fish or the supplementary food should be taken or not, so according to the recommendations given oily food comes to be more effective in providing more omega 3 fats to people than the supplementary food.

C) Yes practice recommendations are supported by the author because the review can be incorrect and further trials would conclude that omega 3 fats are really damaging the cardiovascular activities as as far as no reports was provided to positive long term harm caused by the omega 3 fats including cancer, neurological or different types of stroke.

D) For future researches the author has suggested few directions, they are as follows;

• Large and expensive trials are needed
• Trials of ALA are needed.
• Trials for supplemental long chain omega 3 fats are needed
• Mostly present trials should be of supplement long chain omega 3 fats
•  Addition or association between fish and fat soluble toxin should also be examined.

Question no. 10

A- this is a systematic review as it includes a clear idea about the different study of different reviewers which opened the path of the in the benefits of omega 3 which do not affect the cardiovascular events because results have proved that omega 3 have no such fatal effects over people. The tables and the charts used are the proof of the systematic study of the review.

B.)  the different authors have published in this review and they are as follows:

• Almallah 1998
• Bairati 1992
• Bellamy 1992
• Belluzzi 1996
• Bemelmans 2002
• Bonnema 1995
• Brox 2001
• Burr (DART 1) 1989
• Burr (DART 2) 2003
• Connor 1993
• Dehmer 1998
• Dry 1991
• Eritsland 1996
• Franzen 1993
• Geusens 1994
• Greenfield 1993
• Hawthorne 1992
• Johansen 1999A.

The recommendations provided here is well executed but a definite fact about the whole beneficial effects of omega 3 and its harmful effects in case of cardiovascular activities or the neurological activities should be clear in its sense. The language used is simple and understandable but due to the use of a huge number of reviewers had made it more effective in clearing the view.

C.) The author has provided the comment on the review about the addition and excluded parts where he made clear point on the amount of omega 3 fats that are needed by our body. The quality of the review is high as it explains with proof that omega 3 fat is not harmful to our health up to certain level.

Question no. 11

The types of evidences used are level I type. As it describe the effect of omega 3 and its effect on health of people. The different reviewers explained the facts in different angle but agreed that omega 3 is not harmful in case of total mortality or any cardiovascular events.