It goes without saying that medical researches deserve close attention and consideration. The medical researches which are made with the claim of their further applicability deserve far more consideration and interpretation, lots of preliminary work before the actual living out of the claims, found within a research book. There are different guidelines that provide the procedure of the analysis of the research books. The guides used for the analysis of research, are crucial manuals in the boost of any research, i.e. the time it might be lived out, the opportunities to use the data as soon as possible, etc.
Having studied two guides, one may infer that they are both after a deep analysis of the research data presented. Nevertheless, there are some crucial niceties, concerning the analysis and further applicability missing in one guide. While one of the guides is quality-oriented, meaning that it goes far to the analysis of the same things, subdivided into the sections, while the other one presents an analysis of a more shallow nature, still somehow faster than the first one, being quantity-oriented.
The first issue, missing in the guidelines, provided by McMaster University is the type of research. The type of research is a part, which can not be failed to be mentioned as through the type of research it might be detected how trustworthy it is. The main details of the guides, provided next are mostly common. The only exception is that some details are analyzed more deeply and are further subdivided or just stated without any subdivisions. And finally, the guidelines provide different methods of digesting data. While the Quantitative Study Assignment Critique mentions interpretations and discussion of data among all, the McMaster University guide is not mentioning this part. Though these both are evidently essential for further application of the given technology or hypothesis.
Thereby, the article is based on qualitative research is missing the same parts, as the qualitative guide, mentioned above. The general structure coincides and so do the main points. But the niceties included in the quantity-oriented guide are not mentioned within the article. The article is deep enough to mention the main points with their further subdivisions, making research about research. Still, it would be useful for McMaster University to consider the points, not mentioned in their guide, namely the type of research, data digestion; videlicet data interpretation, and discussion. They are an important part of what might be done in the sphere of critique of the researches and their launching.
While the two guides are differently oriented, they seek to perform different objectives. While the quality-oriented guide seeks to explain and analyze everything in detail, it still misses some parts, mentioned in the quantity-oriented guide, which would make a good part of the research analysis. The article, provided by McMaster University proves the detailed look at the researches, though later on, it might adopt some points from the quantity analysis, namely type of research, data interpretation, and discussion. Adopting the points might make the critique vaster and deeper.
References
Joy C. MacDermid. (2004). An introduction to evidence-based practice for hand therapists. Journal of Hand Therapy, 17, 105-117.