Pengelolaan Online Journal

DRAFT 2. Anton Rahmadi 20 Agustus 2010.

Definisi

Jurnal Online dibentuk sebagai realisasi inisiatif untuk melakukan kompilasi dari ide-ide pelajar Indonesia di Australia yang terdiri dari review, makalah, maupun tugas-tugas mahasiwa yang diutamakan telah mandapat nilai terbaik (high distinction). Setiap pelajar Indonesia yang berada di Australia dapat menjadi kontributor Jurnal Online ini. Semua publikasi di Jurnal Onlinedapat diakses oleh semua orang (open for public view), kecuali atas permintaan penulis. Artikel yang dipublikasi dapat diseleksi kembali untuk diterbitkan dalam Buletin PPI-Australia.

Lingkup kegiatan

Jurnal Online memiliki lingkup kegiatan: 1. mengumpulkan naskah, melakukan seleksi administratif atas kelengkapan naskah

yang terdiri dari naskah (dalam format tertentu), biodata penulis, surat penyataan (consent form), dan menerbitkan artikel-artikel terbaik dalam bentuk Buletin ber-ISSN;

2. menjalin komunikasi dengan PPI cabang di seluruh wilayah Australia yang memiliki program serupa dengan harapan meningkatkan kolaborasi untuk membangun jaringan publikasi akademis yang sinergis;

3. memilih dan berkomunikasi dengan reviewer untuk Buletin yang akan diterbitkan.

Target

Jurnal Online memiliki target:1. Membangun website untuk kepentingan publikasi naskah-naskah yang terkumpul

di alamat http://journal.ppi-australia.org; 2. Mengurus ISSN untuk Buletin;3. Menerbitkan artikel-artikel terbaik dalam bentuk Buletin sebanyak minimal dua

bulletin dalam satu tahun dengan kuantitas sebanyak minimal 12 artikel setiap terbit;

4. Bila diperlukan, terindeks di dalam CrossRef sehingga dapat dicari melalui perpustakaan-perpustakaan di seluruh dunia.

Program

Dua program utama untuk Jurnal Online adalah:1. Mengkompilasi ide-ide pelajar Indonesia di Australia dalam wujud review,

makalah, maupun tugas-tugas mahasiwa yang diutamakan telah mandapat nilai terbaik (high distinction);

2. Menerbitkan artikel-artikel terbaik dalam bentuk Buletin ber-ISSN sebanyak minimal dua bulletin dalam satu tahun.

Cara Kerja Online Jurnal

Cara kerja Online Jurnal terdiri dari beberapa tahapan:1. Registrasi penulis di http://journal.ppi-australia.org dengan ketentuan merupakan

pelajar Indonesia yang menempuh studi di Australia (atau yang telah selesai dengan maksimum waktu selesai tidak lebih dari enam bulan dihitung mundur dari tanggal pengiriman naskah);

2. Pengiriman naskah dalam bentuk Ms Word, (bukti penilaian, bila merupakan tugas dari kampus), disertai dengan biodata singkat penulis dan isian consent form. Naskah dapat dikirimkan kapan saja (tidak ada batas waktu) dalam bahasa Inggris;

3. Seleksi administratif naskah dilakukan oleh koordinator Jurnal Online PPI-Australia. Seleksi administratif hanya memverifikasi kelengkapan naskah dan dokumen-dokumen penyertanya. SLA (Service Level Agreement) maksimum dua minggu setelah naskah diterima. Naskah yang merupakan tugas dari kampus terdiri dari:

o Biodata singkat penuliso Consent formo Bukti Penilaiano Naskah dalam format Ms Word

Naskah berupa review, tulisan, atau hasil penelitian:o Biodata singkat penulis (pertama)o Consent formo Naskah dalam format Ms Word

4. Publikasi online di web http://journal.ppi-australia.org dengan dokumen dalam bentuk PDF. Bentuk lisensi: open for public view, kecuali ada permintaan khusus.

5. Seleksi untuk penerbitan dimana Semua artikel yang telah diterbitkan di situs http://journal.ppi-australia.org akan diseleksi untuk diterbitkan di buletin (akademis) PPI-Australia. Seleksi untuk penerbitan akan melibatkan minimal tiga eksternal reviewer. SLA maksimum empat minggu setelah naskah dinyatakan lengkap. Semua naskah yang kurang dari empat halaman dapat dikembangkan menjadi

sebuah review/penelitian sekitar delapan halaman (single-spaced, times 12pt, tidak termasuk referensi, grafik, dan tabel)

Batas waktu pengumpulan akan ditentukan kemudian.6. Seleksi akhir (corrected proof – oleh penulis) Setiap penulis yang lolos seleksi

akan mendapat notifikasi untuk memenuhi kelengkapan publikasi. Naskah telah diterbitkan online di web http://journal.ppi-australia.org.

Semua penulis dapat sekali lagi memeriksa hasil konversi PDF yang dilakukan dewan editor

Batas waktu koreksi adalah dua minggu sebelum naskah tersedia dalam bentuk bundel resmi Jurnal Online PPI-Australia (PDF).

Setiap penulis yang terseleksi naskahnya akan mendapat sertifikat dari PPI Australia yang dapat digunakan untuk kepentingan curriculum vitae ataupun kepangkatan.

7. Publikasi online di web http://journal.ppi-australia.org. Bentuk lisensi: open for public view, kecuali ada permintaan khusus. Dokumen dalam bentuk bundel PDF Dicetak sebanyak tiga eksemplar untuk kepentingan persyaratan ISSN.

Consent form (surat pernyataan)

Surat pernyataan diperlukan untuk menghindari kemungkinan permasalahan hak atas kekayaan intelektual. Surat pernyataan akan terdiri dari: nama(-nama) penulis, asal institusi, kontak dalam bentuk alamat email dan nomor telepon, tanda tangan minimal dari penulis pertama, dan pernyataan yang terdiri dari: 1. Naskah merupakan hasil karya sendiri/semua penulis yang tercantum di dalam

naskah;2. Naskah yang pernah dipublikasikan dicantumkan alamat publikasinya;3. Penulis memiliki hak cipta/intelektual atas naskah dan menghormati hak

cipta/intelektual atas sitasi-sitasi yang dilakukan di dalam naskah;4. PPI-Australia tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap kebenaran dan isi dari naskah; 5. Apabila terdapat dispute maka naskah akan ditarik penerbitannya dari Jurnal

Online PPI-Australia.

Editor

Dewan Editor

Koordinator Jurnal Online bekerja berdasarkan Surat Keputusan Ketua Umum PPI Australia (PPIA Pusat) dan dapat berfungsi sebagai ketua dewan editor. Koordinator Jurnal Online dalam pekerjaannya dapat dibantu oleh editor anggota yang jumlahnya disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan. Diakhir kepengurusan, dewan editor akan mendapat sertifikat dari PPI Australia yang dapat digunakan untuk kepentingan curriculum vitae ataupun kepangkatan.

Seleksi Dewan Editor

Posisi ketua dewan editor akan dirangkap oleh koordinator Jurnal Online, sementara posisi anggota dewan editor akan ditawarkan kepada seluruh anggota PPI-Australia yang berminat. Durasi kerja dewan editor adalah satu tahun mengikuti kepengurusan PPI-Australia pusat. Sangat diharapkan, dewan editor merupakan perwakilan dari divisi atau bidang akademis dari PPI-Australia cabang-cabang ataupun kegiatan sejenis di Australia.

Fungsi Dewan Editor

Dewan editor di dalam Jurnal Online PPI-Australia berfungsi untuk:1. Melakukan verifikasi kelengkapan naskah yang akan dipublikasikan di web

http://journal.ppi-australia.org;2. Melakukan penyutingan mikro terhadap naskah yang dipublikasikan di web

http://journal.ppi-australia.org apabila diperlukan;3. Memilih artikel-artikel yang akan dipublikasikan di Buletin PPI-Australia;4. Terhadap artikel-artikel yang dipublikasikan di Buletin PPI-Australia,

penyuntingan makro dan mikro dapat dilakukan.

Teknis Penyuntingan

Penyuntingan Mikro terdiri dari:1. Pembetulan kesalahan tata bahasa, ejaan, tanda baca;2. Perbaikan kesalahan dalam fakta;3. Perubahan presentasi digit atau kata (“11” atau “sebelas”, “March 11, 2002” atau

“11 March 2002”, “DNA” atau “Asam deoksinukleat”);4. Penyesuaian gaya selingkung.

Penyuntingan Makro terdiri dari:1. Penyusunan ulang atau organisasi ulang naskah bila diperlukan; 2. Perbaikan hubungan antar kalimat dan paragraf;3. Efektifitas kalimat yang panjang lebar;4. Pemberian tajuk (heading), ringkasan, dan rambu (guide post) lain bagi pembaca5. Penulisan ulang pendahuluan dan penutupan, apabila diperlukan;6. Pengecekan logika;7. Pemendekan panjang naskah;8. Pengubahan nada (tone);9. Perubahan presentasi kata konkret untuk generalisasi;10. Penggantian kata yang rumit dengan kata sederhana;11. Dengan kata lain, penyesuaian aturan keterbacaan teks

Mitra Bestari (Reviewer)

Tugas dari mitra bestari adalah memilih artikel yang layak untuk terbit di Buletin PPI-Australia, menelaah artikel-artikel tersebut dengan maksud: (1) lebih mengembangkan/mengeksplorasi ide penulis, (2) menyesuaikan dengan gaya selingkung yang dianut oleh Buletin PPI-Australia, dan (3) memperhatikan koherensi naskah secara keseluruhan. Untuk menunjang obyektivitas, metode penelaahan adalah blind-review, dimana satu artikel akan dikirimkan tanpa pencantuman nama penulis, dan nama mitra bestari untuk artikel bersangkutan juga tidak diketahui oleh penulis. Diakhir masa tugas, mitra bestari akan mendapat sertifikat dari PPI Australia yang dapat digunakan untuk kepentingan curriculum vitae ataupun kepangkatan.

Seleksi Mitra Bestari

Mitra bestari dari Jurnal Online PPI-Australia akan dipilih tiga bulan sebelum edisi Buletin PPI-Australia terbit. Durasi kerja mitra bestari adalah satu edisi mengikuti jadual terbit Buletin PPI-Australia. Mitra bestari dipilih berdasarkan kesediaan pelajar Indonesia di Australia, atau mitra bestari yang diundang untuk dapat menelaah artikel-artikel dimaksud dalam satu edisi penerbitan Buletin PPI-Australia.

Teknis Penelaahan

Naskah yang terseleksi untuk dipublikasikan di Buletin PPI-Australia akan ditelaah oleh mitra bestari (reviewer)

Penelaahan oleh mitra bestari melingkupi:1. Penggunaan gramatikal Bahasa Inggris.2. Keringkasan dan Keterwakilan isi makalah di dalam judul.3. Abstrak telah merangkum secara singkat dan jelas tentang:

Tujuan dan ruang lingkup penelitian; Metode yang digunakan; Ringkasan Hasil; Simpulan.

4. Pendahuluan menguraikan secara jelas tentang: Masalah dan ruang lingkup; Update ringkas di bidang kajian tersebut dewasa ini; Hipotesis; Cara/pendekatan penyelesaian masalah.

5. Hasil yang diharapkan: Tata kerja telah ditulis secara jelas sehingga percobaaan tersebut dapat

diulang. Hasil dan pembahasan disusun secara rinci:

o Data yang disajikan telah diolah, dituangkan dalam bentuk tabel atau gambar, serta diberi keterangan yang mudah dipahami.

o Pada bagian pembahasan terlihat adanya kaitan antara hasil yang diperoleh dan konsep dasar dan atau hipotesis.

o Kesesuaian atau petentangan dengan hasil litbang lain. Implikasi hasil litbang baik teoretis maupun penerapan.

6. Simpulan berisi secara singkat dan jelas tentang: Esensi hasil litbang Penalaran penulis secara logis dan jujur berdasarkan fakta yang diperoleh.

7. Daftar pustaka Telah ditulis secara benar sesuai dengan petunjuk. Kemuktahiran pustaka rujukan. Keprimeran pustaka rujukan.

8. Prinsip penyuntingan: Dilakukan dengan hati-hati. Tidak membuat perubahan semata-mata karena ingin mengubah, atau karena

begitulah gaya yang disukai.

Tidak menghapus gambar atau kata-kata yang tak lazim tetapi efektif yang sengaja berulang-ulang dibuat oleh penulis untuk memberi penekanan pada pernyataanya.

Mengaktifkan fungsi Reviewing dan Track Changes yang tersedia di Ms Word/aplikasi yang sesuai.

Tidak terjebak dalam menelaah pilihan kata yang lebih baik (kecuali kata-kata non akademis dan besaran yang tidak bisa dikuantifikasikan).

Online Journal PPI-AInternal Document – Author Guidelines Prepared by Anton Rahmadi, adopted from Biotext Editing

Checklist.

Language: English

General Rules:1. A4 paper, default Ms Word/Open Office margin 2. Font face and styles: Times new roman 14pt bold (Heading 1), 14pt-regular

(Heading 2), 12pt-bold (Heading 3), 12-pt-bolditalics (Heading 4), 12pt single-spaced (body text), 8-10pt (figure and table), 10pt (references).

Layout:Review Article Research Article

Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Review (in headings and sub headings -- division of content make sense), Conclusion/ Recommendation, References

Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Material and Methods, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, References

Mini Review: 5-8 pages.Full Review: up to 20 pages

Research Article: normally 6-8 pages, maximum 10 pages.

Title:1. Up to 20 words2. Reflect accurately what the paper says

Abstract:1. Summary of background, idea/research question, main outcome, highlight of

most relevant results.2. Reflects accurately what the paper says3. Fewer than 250 words

Keywords: 1. Up to five

Introduction: 1. Background and research gap is explained with adequate but recent citations.2. Research question is clearly defined.

For Review: Headings1. Heading should help reader to follow document and reflects the content.

Material and Methods: 1. Methods are adequately described (randomised trials, systematic reviews,

observational studies, health economics studies, study ethics approval). 2. Overall design of study is appropriate and adequate to answer the research

question.

Results and Discussion:1. Main outcome is measured clearly. 2. Results credibly answered the research question and well presented. 3. Interpretation and conclusions are discussed in the light of previous evidence.

Table and Figure1. Title gives complete information.2. Text flowing, easy to follow.3. Appropriate position: simple (in text) or complex (at appendix).

References:1. Shortened Harvard style (see:

http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/tutorials/citing/harvard.html)2. References are up to date and relevant

Example: Scutt, JA 2003b. Without precedent: sex/gender discrimination in the High Court. Alternative Law Journal 28(2): 74-77.

Paragraphing guidelines:1. Text is fluent, easy to read and understand.2. Logical structure easy to flow. Average length of sentence: 12-18 words. 3. The use of bullet and numbering should reflect summarizing and highlighting

function. 4. Numbers, technical terms, units and chemical names should be consistent.

Consent Form:

Author (or main authors) should sign a consent form stating that:

1. Author(s) comply with anti-plagiarism act (see: http://www.lc.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism)

2. Text which has been published elsewhere should be mentioned and requested for approval (if needed).

3. Author(s) has intelectual property for the text and ackowledged other’s intelectual propertes that are cited in the reference section.

4. Editorial Board is excluded from responsibilty of the correctness of data and content of the text.

5. As for dispute resolution, Editorial Board will retract the text from publication and send a notification to respective parties.

Online Journal PPI-AInternal Document – Editing Checklist Prepared by Anton Rahmadi, adopted from Biotext Editing

Checklist.

Component Aim RemarkLogical Structure

1. Logical structure easy to flow2. Division of content make

senseHeadings 3. Heading helps reader to

follow document4. Heading reflects the content5. Appropriate levels (approx. 5)6. No nonparallel structure

Tables and Figures

7. Title gives complete information

8. Text flowing, easy to follow9. Appropriate position: in text

or appendixLinking text 10. Document easy to follow with

parts clearly linked11. Each chapter/section has

introductory textSentences 12. Average length of 12-18

words13. Long sentences can be broken

upCapitalisation

14. Consistent and minimal capitalisation

Bullets and Numbering

15. Should reflect: summarizing, highlighting

16. Each point following from lead-in sentence, 3-6 points, parallel structure

Passive voice 17. Activate sentence where possible

18. Maximum 40% passive voiceGrammatical problems

19. Text is fluent, easy to read and understand

Technical consistency

20. Facts are accurate and consistent

21. Technical term, units, chemical names should be consistent.

Overal Remarks

Editor Name: Date:

Online Journal PPI-AInternal Document –

Reviewing Checklist model #1Prepared by Anton Rahmadi, adopted from BMJ Reviewing

Checklist.

Component RemarkOriginality and Importance 1. Does the work add enough to what is already

in the published literature?2. Does this work matter our readers?Scientific Reliability3. Research question is clearly defined and

appropriately answered. 4. Overall design of study is appropriate and

adequate to answer the research question. 5. Main outcome is measured clearly.6. Methods are adequately described

(randomised trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, health economics studies, study ethics approval).

7. Results credibly answered the research question and well presented.

8. Interpretation and conclusions are warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data. (discussed in the light of previous evidence)

9. References are up to date and relevant

10. Abstract/summary/key messages/what this paper adds reflect accurately what the paper says.

Logical Structure11. Message is clear.12. Logical structure easy to flowTechnical consistency13. Facts are accurate and consistent14. Technical term, units, chemical names should

be consistent.

Overal Remarks

Reviewer Name: Date:

Online Journal PPI-AInternal Document –

Reviewing Checklist model #2 by The Cochrane Renal Group.

Each review needs to be explicit and comprehensive. At each part of the review, the referee should ask the questions:-

- “Did the authors do what the protocol said they planned to do?”- “Have they done it correctly?”- Please enter;

- Y (yes),- N (no),- ? (unsure),- or NA (not applicable) in the right-hand column.

- Please include comments at the end of the checklist.

Abstract

Does each section of the abstract accurately reflect the equivalent section in the review Background Objectives Search strategy Selection criteria Data collection and analysis Main results Reviewers' conclusions

Background

Does the background support the need for a systematic review by providing sufficient information on the frequency and severity of the clinical problem and the uncertainties in its management?

Does the background address the important issues for consumers?

Objective/s

Was the main objective of the review specified in terms of intervention(s), clinical problem, population and outcomes (both beneficial and harmful)? Example: To evaluate the benefits (reduction in number of children who relapse) and harms (serious infections, cystitis) of different agents, other than corticosteroids, that are used in children who pursue a relapsing course of steroid responsive nephrotic syndrome

Selection criteria

Types of participants:

Were the characteristics of the clinical problem and the population with the clinical problem described?Example Children aged 3 months to 18 years with steroid responsive nephrotic syndrome who have suffered one or more relapses

Was a clear case definition for establishing the presence of the clinical problem included?Example The child, who becomes free of oedema and whose urine protein is < 1+ on dipstick or < 4mg/m2/hr for 3 consecutive days after receiving corticosteroid therapy.

Were the population groups to be excluded specified? Example Children in their first episode of nephrotic syndrome, children with steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome, children with congenital nephrotic syndrome and children with other renal or systemic forms of nephrotic syndrome defined on renal biopsy, clinical features or serology

Were the appropriate population groups excluded?

Types of studies:

Did the authors include randomised controlled trials? Did the authors include quasi-randomised trials?

Types of interventions and comparisons

Were the study interventions described? Were the control interventions described? Were all relevant interventions for the clinical problem and question asked

identified?Example- Non corticosteroid agent versus placebo- Non-corticosteroid agent versus prednisone used alone.- Two different non-corticosteroid agents- Different doses and durations of the same non-corticosteroid agent

Were the interventions excluded described? Were the interventions excluded appropriate?

Types of outcomes:

Were the outcome measures for benefits and harms of the intervention(s) clearly defined in nature and in timing?

Were the outcome measures used important to the population with the clinical problem?

Were all relevant outcomes (beneficial and harmful) included?Example- The prevention of relapse in steroid responsive nephrotic syndrome as

measured by the numbers of children with and without relapse at 6 months, 12 months and 2 years

- Mean relapse rates per patient per year - Serious adverse effects of therapy

If specific outcomes have been included, did they conform with the question asked?

Search strategy

Was the search strategy included? Were the dates that each source was searched indicated?Were the following data sources searched?

Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (most recent) MEDLINE (from 1966 – most recent) EMBASE (from 1980 – most recent) Reference lists of textbooks, reviews (including previous systematic

reviews), and previous trials Conference proceedings

Did the authors contact experts in the field? Were the appropriate subject headings, key words and text words for the clinical

problem and population used? Was the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy to identify RCTs used?

Did the reviewers contact the Trials Search Coordinator? Were studies in languages other than English included? Did the reviewers identify and deal with duplicate publications of the same trial in

the way that they said they would in the protocol? If not, did they deal with duplicate publications in a way that would reduce bias?

Assessment of quality

Were the criteria used to assess study quality reported?Did the criteria used to assess study quality include:-

Allocation concealment Blinding of participants Blinding of investigators Blinding of outcome assessment Intention to treat analysis Completeness of follow-up

Were these items assessed separately rather than 'combined' in a scoring system?

Methods of the Review

Did at least two authors of the review:- Perform the literature search? Determine study eligibility? Assess study quality? Extract data? Enter data in RevMan?

Did reviewers work independently? Was there consensus and/or liaison with a third reviewer to resolve disagreement

between the primary reviewers? Were authors of primary studies contacted for clarification of unclear data or to

obtain missing information? If so, was this information provided to the reviewers?

Did the reviewers attempt to analyse for possible publication bias using funnel plots or other methods?

If not, did the reviewers state why this could not be done?

Statistical analysis

Were the results of primary studies reported with 95% CI using relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous outcomes?

Were the RR and WMD summary statistics calculated using a random effects model?Example: Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan. For dichotomous outcomes (relapse or no relapse) results were expressed as RR with 95% CI. Data was pooled using the random effects model. Where continuous scales of measurement were used to assess the effects of treatment (number of relapses/year), the WMD was used, or the standardised mean difference if different scales were used.

Did the reviewers test for heterogeneity as pre-specified in the protocol?Example: Heterogeneity was be analysed using the Cochran Q test on N-1 degrees of freedom, with an α of 0.1 used for statistical significance

Were plausible explanations for variations in treatment effect explored using subgroup analysis based on study quality, population and interventions? Example: Sub-group analysis was planned based on study quality, patient-type (age, presence of abnormal radiological findings) and intervention (type of antibiotic used) as we postulated that the relative treatment effect could vary these factors.

Did the reviewers attempt to determine the applicability of the results to individual patients? Example: Calculation of absolute risk reductions with therapy in relation to different baseline risk of the event with no treatment or a different therapy.

Description of studies, Characteristics of included studies/Characteristics of excluded studies

Were the important details of the included studies summarised in the text of the review?

Were the important details of study design, participants, interventions and definitions of outcomes included in the table “Characteristics of included studies”?

Were the reasons for excluding any studies clearly reported in the text and in the table “Characteristics of excluded studies”?

If studies were excluded, are the reasons for exclusion consistent with the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the section on “Criteria for considering studies for the review”?

Are you aware of any other studies that should have been included?

Methodological quality of the included studies

Was there a table listing the quality items for each included study?

Was a short summary of the quality assessment of the included studies included in the text?

Results/comparison table

Key results

Are the key results of the review provided in the text? Did the key results address the objectives of the review?

Meta analysis

If results were pooled, was this appropriate? Did between study heterogeneity exist?

If yes, was it appropriately explained?

Outcomes

Were all outcomes described in the protocol included in the results?

Subgroup analysis

Were planned subgroup analyses included?Example: Sub-group analysis showed that there was no difference in relative treatment effects (recurrence of urinary tract infections) between sulphonamide containing antibiotics (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.47,3.10) and non-sulphonamide based antibiotics (RR 1.77; 95% CI 0.96,3.29).

If planned subgroup analyses were not included, did the reviewers explain the reasons for this?

Were subgroup analyses that were not specified in the protocol performed (post hoc analysis)?

If so, were these analyses described as being post hoc?

Discussion

Key results

Were the principal results (both benefits and harms) summarised?

Was the potential clinical importance of these results discussed?

Are the conclusions of the study consistent with the results?

Consistency of results

Was the consistency/inconsistency of trial results discussed?

Limitations of the study

Were the implications of the following methodological problems discussed:

Publication bias Trial quality Impression of results (sample size, CI) Uncertainty of harms

Comparison with other data

Were the review findings discussed in relation to relevant evidence from other studies or reviews?

Reviewers’ conclusions

Implications for practice

Did the reviewers attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the results of benefits and risks to patients of low medium and high risk of adverse outcomes? (see table below)

Implications for research

Did the reviewers determine which questions had been answered by the review?

If so, do you agree? Did the reviewers determine which questions require further trials?

If so, do you agree? Did the reviewers suggest new studies based on the reviewed research?

If so, do you believe that these studies are appropriate?

Can you suggest further studies that should be done?