The Strengths of the Academic Work
The study paper, which discusses the efficiency of two medication types that are used in adult individuals against non-valvular atrial fibrillation, presents an excellent model of academic work constitution. The paper has a correct structure, which provides a division between the backgrounds, the purpose, the methods, and the clinical implications. The structuring is sustained with the help of providing subheadings and logical transitions to different parts of the study. The work points are supported with the well-developed reference list, which embraces fourteen academic peer-reviewed sources. The content of the study complies with the purpose of the work since it answers three fundamental questions, which evolve from the work. Specifically, it analyzes the most controversial point of Warfarin vs. Rivaroxaban use, which is whether the former is more effective for coagulation prevention than the latter. Moreover, the work states the advantages and disadvantages of using two medicine types in comparison. Finally, the study evaluates adverse effects of the medicine employment.
The Essential Weaknesses of the Study
The primary weakness of the analyzed paper refers to the fact that the methodology of the study does not reflect on the subjects’ background in the measure, which corresponds to the paper guidelines. Thus, the academic paper does not assess the parameters of age, gender, and clinical implications of medicine use, which characterizes the participants of the evaluation. The addition of the data on the members’ personalities would disclose the medicine use characteristics in a full value. The second critical drawback of the paper concerns the outcome of the research study. The work concludes that two medicine types are equally effective for embolism prevention though there are some critical discrepancies in cost and use characteristics. Nevertheless, the paper does not provide any recommendations for the individualized employment of Warfarin and Rivaroxaban, which might stem from the patients’ health, age, and gender.
The recommendations for study improvement concern several factors. Primarily, it might be suggested to elaborate the structure of the paper by separating the information about the pros and cons of the analyzed medicine use into one part. The provided structure offers some facts about the advantageous and disadvantageous use of Warfarin and Rivaroxaban along the general use description, which does not emphasize the pros and cons. Since the question belongs to three critical points of the study, it would be beneficial to prioritize it. Secondly, the content of the analyzed work can be elaborated by adding some consistent information about the participants’ background since the paper does not provide any data except for the common health problem, which concerns the patients. Finally, some constructive evidence of individualized medicine use recommendations might be suggested in order to emphasize the effects of the treatment.
Journal Guideline Discrepancies
The academic article is recommended for publishing in the Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing-Author Guide. The source specializes in cardiovascular treatment, which means that the suggested study fits in the journal. The article complies with the standard journal requirements. Mainly, it has a corresponding word count, the reference submission format. The content of the work has an appropriate form as well since it is properly structured and, includes more than three keywords, and offers the table “what’s new?” Therefore, it might be claimed that the article does not show any journal discrepancies and can be included in the source edition (Cardiovascular ultrasound, 2015).
Cardiovascular ultrasound. (2015). Web.