1
Critical Appraisal of Literature Review and Suggested Best Practices
Students Name
Institutions Name
Course code
Practicum Placement Agency's Name
Preceptor Name (First and Last)
Preceptor E-mail Address
Site Name
Date
2
Introduction
Systematic reviews are basically a literature review that is comprehensive and
straightforward. The SLR uses search techniques to make sure the maximum magnitude of
relevant studies has been taken into account. Original papers are evaluated and synthesized
methodologically using strict criteria for identifying, evaluating and synthesizing all work on a
subject (Ryan, 2010).
Appraising the literature
While appraising the literature, I based on three primary questions: (A) Are the results of
the analysis valid? (B) What was the study's outcome? (C) The findings will allow me to take
care of my patients? "The answers to those questions ensure the relevance and applicability of
the evidence from the search to the particular population for whom the clinician provides care"
(p. 120), according to Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2005).
Usually, findings are less biased than narrative analyses because of the strict analytical
methodology and guidelines adopted. This system, however, was not without its criticisms. First,
these criticisms are illustrated.
A study carried by out by Muralidharan and Fenton, (2006) on containment strategies for
people with serious mental illness indicated that a high form of proof is a systematic review. The
findings help medical experts to come to terms with the best form of treatment. This work can be
used by medical professionals in the implementation of different strategies used during times of
psychological distress to handle severely sick individuals. The articles produced from the search,
however, were limited and would therefore yield results that were not comprehensive.
3
A research carried out by Iozzino et al. (2015) on prevalence and risk factors of violence
by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that allow health
professionals to come to terms with the correct form of treatment. The results also inform state
healthcare systems ' strategies, such as whether to support a new drug.
In another study carried out by Humera et al. (2019) on the need of Physical and
Chemical Restraints: Experiences at Inpatient Psychiatric Ward in a Tertiary Care Hospital in
Karachi, Pakistan revealed that that violence and aggression are the most common predictor of
restraint use and that many patients have undergone both chemical and physical restraints.
Chemical control has been used in almost everything as a first option. Audits are required to
assess good practice; and also, to establish effective training programs to disseminate knowledge
among medical personnel. Because in psychiatric settings the use of restraints may be necessary,
a good monitoring system is also needed to prevent its unnecessary use. The limitations of this
study are that the sample size was not large but may not be the real representative in Pakistan of
all mentally ill participants. The main focus of this study, however, was centered on the
introduction of a suitable restraint monitoring system.
A research by Price et al. (2018) on patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the
use and effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression
in mental health settings shows that the underuse of de-escalation methods was due to: poor
reflection on culture and procedure by the staff and a need to preserve patient control. This
research is critical in identifying obstacles that may hinder the implementation of strategies for
de-escalation. There was, however, a disparity between women (16) and male (8) participants,
4
but sufficient coverage was received by eight males. One risk involved in enforcing the
procedures is perceived bullying by caregivers.
Best Practices
According to Petticrew and Roberts (2006, p. 21), when deciding whether the systematic
literature review is the right approach before undertaking on a new piece of research, there are
five key points worth examining. The reliability of the reviewed papers ' methods was high.
Petticrew and Roberts (2006) argue that the quality of the studies included in the systematic
review of literature will eventually affect the results ' reliability and thus the conclusions drawn.
The search for studies must therefore be detailed by triangulating a range of search methods (e.g.
searching for electronic databases, hand-searching, and citation-searching).
The vocabulary used was neutral in the papers. Significant research carried out in non-
English-speaking countries were exempt from language discrimination. If reviews include only
fully reported studies in English, their results and interpretations may be skewed as they are
likely to affect accuracy since analyzes are based on less data (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006).
Conclusion
Completing the systematic review of literature is an important achievement and the
accumulated results should be regarded for dissemination as, if properly conducted, the
systematic review of literature has the influence to implement the changes and policies in
professional practice as well as to encourage further research.
5
References
Humera Saeed, M. Shameel Khan, Syeda Maheen Batool, Asma Akbar Ladak, Nadia Karim and
Rabeeka Aftab. (2019). Need of Physical and Chemical Restraints: Experiences at
Inpatient Psychiatric Ward in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of
the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2019, Vol. 29 (5): 486-488
Iozzino L, Ferrari C, Large M, Nielssen O, de Girolamo G. (2015). Prevalence and risk factors of
violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS
ONE. 2015 Jun 10 [cited 2015 Oct 16];10(6):e0128536.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (Eds.). (2005). Evidence-based practice in nursing and
healthcare. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Muralidharan S, Fenton M. (2006). Containment strategies for people with serious mental illness.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD002084. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD002084.pub2.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Price O, Baker J, Bee P, (2018). Patient perspectives on barriers and enablers to the use and
effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for the management of violence and aggression
in mental health settings. J Adv Nurs. 2018; 74:614–625
