The paper used for the evaluation was written by the members of the American College of Physicians. The guideline relies on the studies published from 2004 through 2015. Although some of the studies used for this paper might be obsolete, there is a high chance that the authors relied on newer studies to increase the fidelity of the research (Qaseem, Kansagara, Forciea, Cooke, & Denberg, 2016).
To point out the importance of the study, the authors notice that insomnia is one of the most widespread health care problems in the USA (Qaseem et al., 2016). Each year, approximately $30 billion to $107 billion is spent in the USA to treat insomnia (Qaseem et al., 2016). This disease can adversely influence the workplace productivity of individuals and lead to losses in the economy of the USA.
The sources used for this study were primary: “randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from 2004 through September 2015” (Qaseem et al., 2016, p. 126). The authors constructed the guideline using the evidence tables provided after the evidence research.
To ensure that there was no bias, the authors asked the AHRQ’s Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center to provide evidence review (Qaseem et al., 2016). Furthermore, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to grade the gathered evidence. Peer reviewers were also engaged in the evaluation of the study. The evidence review was available for public comments since it was published on the AHRQ Web site (Qaseem et al., 2016). To assess the quality of the evidence, the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the AHRQ handbook was used (Qaseem et al., 2016).
The organization of the guideline is logical, although it is reasonable to mention that the abundance of subsections might interfere with the reading. However, these sections are added to ensure that the needed information is accessed quickly. Each of the sections in “Benefits of Treatments” reviews the general and older population in separated paragraphs (Qaseem et al., 2016, p. 126). Although structured logically, the study provides little to no information about the comparative effectiveness of different interventions. Furthermore, the section that discusses the harms of treatment is not divided into the same subsections (general population and older population) as the previous one. The reader, therefore, perceives this section as more incomplete. The advantage of the study is that the results are presented both in the text and in the tables. Furthermore, the authors did not exclude detailed or raw data from the research and provided it in the end as the study’s appendix tables.
The guideline does not end with a summary of the most important knowledge, which can be considered as the study’s major disadvantage. Although the findings are expressed in the tables and appendixes, the summary is not provided. Instead, at the end of the guide, the authors discuss the efficiency of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, which does belong to the significant findings (Qaseem et al., 2016). However, its efficiency is only a part of all findings presented in the study. It seems reasonable to assume that the authors are interested in providing the most important finding as they see it and allow the reader to find the additional results in the attached tables. However, such an approach seems dubious because it harms the overall perception of the study as clearly structured and professionally written. If the authors included the summary, it would be much easier for the reader to find the relevant information.
Reference
Qaseem, A., Kansagara, D., Forciea, M. A., Cooke, M., & Denberg, T. D. (2016). Management of chronic insomnia disorder in adults: A clinical practice guideline from the American college of physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(2), 125-133.