Deep Brain Stimulation Essay

The current review was managed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and established guidelines for narrative synthesis by Popay et al. (2006).

Please list the references and clinical resources that you use in your review of this document. These references should support any clinical or extensive revisions or additions that you make. Aside from known common best practices, references are required. We reserve the right to request additional references. References and resources used:

A focused clinical research question is comprised of four essential elements: the patient, population, or problem (P); the intervention of interest (I); the comparison of interest or the standard of care (C); and the outcome of interest (O). These four components represent the acronym PICO (Stone, 2002). As the elements of PICO become more precise, the review of the literature becomes more focused. For example, elements of PICO may translate into medical subject headings that can direct searches of the literature (Stone, 2002). Also, clinical questions for specific patient populations can be identified so that relevant information can be found on databases and Internet search engines easily (Adams, 2012). The facilitation of the data collection process is determined by how well the PICO components are articulated during the development of the focused clinical question (Stone, 2002).

The IMRAD format is the most common format for scientific papers and includes an introduction, methods, results, and discussion section (Greenhalgh, 2010). The introduction section includes a summary of the author’s reasons for developing the study; the methods section displays the author’s techniques which include study design and tools for data analysis; the results section displays the data found by the experiment; then finally, the discussion section contains the author’s interpretation and application of the results (Greenhalgh, 2010).

The lesson and case studies presented for evaluation was a great learning exercise. A better understanding of how to interpret data was gained. Also, weighing the clinical significance versus the statistical significance to show relevance is invaluable. All research is not quality research and one must be equipped to recognize bias, threats to validity and proper population representation. Moreover, critiquing the credibility of a study is essential to the health care advances.

* Select a literature search topic relevant to your practice. The topic must be sufficiently delineated in scope without being trivial. You will revisit this article in the Week Five presentation. Possible topics include but are not limited to:

This article can be very difficult to understand if the reader is not part of the clinical psychology discourse community. In order to understand this article, one would need to know how to read Psychology journal articles. Psychology journal articles are made up of five different sections, that is; the abstract, introduction, method section, the results section, the discussion section, and the references section. In this article, the abstract and introduction summarized what Baker and Nash are looking for and how they got their answers. The method section and results section shows the way in which the research came about and what the procedures used and variables measured are and what were the results through the use of tables and figures to explain exactly what they mean. The discussion section is a summary of the entire article and what the tables and figures mean. Lastly, the references section shows all the cited articles and sources used in this article.

As a single descriptive study, this research study stands at the lower end of the continuum regarding strength of research evidence, however, this does not deem the findings useless. Although, the findings observed may not be immediately applied to clinical procedures and interventions it still brings light to a phenomenon within clinical practice. According to Grove et al. (2015) “descriptive studies often provide initial knowledge, which serves as a basis for generating quasi-experimental and outcomes studies” (p. 25). With the new insight gained through the study, future studies could be done to see if this finding could be manipulated and replicated to produce stronger

There is no specific section discussing reliability and validity in this study. Although there was no specific section or heading, throughout this study, the authors did consult with the advisory committee at multiple points and the authors do lists that as a limitation that this study is not generalizable. Main findings were also discussed and verified with the community advisory committee for accuracy of

Please list the references and clinical resources that you use in your review of this document. These references should support any clinical or extensive revisions or additions that you make. If your edits are based on your own clinical experience or opinion, please indicate this. References and resources used:

The process of critiquing a qualitative and quantitative article has enabled us, as a group, to further understand the importance of knowing how to find, recognize, and understand reliable evidence within a research article. Furthermore, this learning has given us the confidence to integrate current research into our growing clinical knowledge when advocating for our

A 54 year old patient named Rod suffered from severe depression since the age of 17. He tried many combinations of therapy and medications for over 2 decades with no success, however, at the age of 53, Rod went to the Calabasa TMS Center for a three week TMS treatment, and his depression was greatly improved. Now, he still attends therapy and a routine TMS treatment, and his depression is cured. He spoke of the treatment in an interview with the center, “TMS has eliminated the depression and allowed me to be awake and alive” (Success Story).

Types of studies. Studies were included if they are quantitative, published within the last ten years (2007 to 2017), and from peer-reviewed journals. These criteria were established to ensure the timeliness and credibility of the sample studies. No restriction on language was set to ensure that a wider scope of studies can be included.

According to Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2015), it is very important that the clinician communicates a well formed clinical question effectively, thereby, achieving the maximum amount of relevant information in a short amount of time. In order to accomplish this, one must utilize the components recommended in our test to formulate a clear and concise clinical question. First, is to determine what the clinical issue is that is creating the conundrum in your practice. Second, is the ability to describe the questions in an style that is credible. Third, in order to answer the clinical inquiry, one must determine if the query is searchable in a PICOT format. The fourth component and most important is the clinician's skill level in which it takes

Relevant articles and studies were sourced from databases accessed through the Auckland University of Technology library. These databases include the AUT Library database, CINAHL accessed via EBSCO, ProQuest, SOCindex, ClinicalKey and BMJ Learning. Articles referenced within these sources were also considered. A successful attempt was made to base all findings on original research and studies.