Systematic-Review-Drug-Efficiency-Dissertation-Sample-Work-Tutors-India
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) as the name suggests is a progressive disorder with no known aetiology. It is characterised by the thickening of the alveoli due to scarring resulting in cough. It is known to primarily occur in older adults over 60 years of age. The findings of IPF have a known association of Usual Interstitial Pneumonia (UIP) (Raghu et al., 2011; Kawano-Dourado & Kairalla, 2013; Wells, 2013). It has been deemed that the prognosis is generally poor when UIP has been confirmed (King et al., 2001b). The median survival rate of IPF is 50%, typically around two years after diagnosis (Raghu et al., 2011; King et al., 2001b).
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) as the name suggests is a progressive disorder with no known aetiology. It is characterised by the thickening of the alveoli due to scarring resulting in cough. It is known to primarily occur in older adults over 60 years of age. The findings of IPF have a known association of Usual Interstitial Pneumonia (UIP) (Raghu et al., 2011; Kawano-Dourado & Kairalla, 2013; Wells, 2013). It has been deemed that the prognosis is generally poor when UIP has been confirmed (King et al., 2001b). The median survival rate of IPF is 50%, typically around two years after diagnosis (Raghu et al., 2011; King et al., 2001b).
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Following are the questions of the CASP tool for RCTs (Table 1) and the answers to<br />
each question considering the research article for critical evaluation are also provided in<br />
Table 2.<br />
Table 1- CASP for RCTs<br />
Q. No Question<br />
Are the results of the trial valid?<br />
1 Did the trial address a clearly focused issue?<br />
2 Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised?<br />
3 Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its<br />
conclusion?<br />
Is it worth continuing?<br />
4 Were patients, health workers and study personnel ‘blind’ to treatment?<br />
5 Were the groups similar at the start of the trial?<br />
6 Aside from the experimental intervention were the groups treated equally?<br />
What are the results?<br />
7 How large was the treatment effect? (Is the primary outcome clearly specified)<br />
8 How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?<br />
9 Can the results be applied in your context? (or to the local population?)<br />
10 Were all clinically important outcomes considered?<br />
11 Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?<br />
The assessment of the studies for the systematic review and the answers to the CASP<br />
tool are provided in Table 2.<br />
© 2017-2018 All Rights Reserved, No part of this document should be modified/used without prior consent<br />
<strong>Tutors</strong> <strong>India</strong> - Your trusted mentor since 2001<br />
www.tutorindia.com I UK # +44-1143520021, info@tutorsindia.com<br />
Page 69 of 172
Change language