Deconstruct the Article "Remimazolam versus propofol for deep sedation/anaesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial"

Article Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36334013/

Use the tool below:

Research Article Reference (AMA format)

Abstract (in your words,250 max)

Keywords (5 maximum)

Things to Consider During a Review:

To which research article category does this manuscript best conform (e.g. meta-analysis, case report, RCT, etc...)? Why is this an appropriate type of study for this topic?

Does the manuscript address an important problem?

Are there any potential biases evident in reviewing this manuscript? List two.

Will the study contribute significantly to scientific knowledge?

The Abstract:

Does the abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript?

Are there discrepancies between the Abstract and the remainder of the manuscript? If so, what are they?

Can the intent of the research study be understood by reading the Abstract alone without reading the manuscript?

The Introduction:

Is the Introduction concise?

Is the purpose of the study clearly defined (look for the problem, the WHY?)? Are aims and/or objectives explicitly stated?

Do the authors provide a rationale for performing the study based on a review of the medical literature?

Do the authors define terms used in the remainder of the manuscript?

If this manuscript is Original Research, is there a well-defined hypotheses?

The Methods Section: Good Research?

Is this study replicable? Could another investigator reproduce the study using the methods as outlined or are the methods unclear?

Do the authors justify use of choices available to them in their study design (e.g. choices of imaging techniques, analytic tools, or statistical methods)?

If the authors have stated a hypothesis, have they designed methods that could reasonably allow their hypothesis to be tested?

Were there independent, dependent, and /or control variables? If so, list them.

For each variable, is there a description of validity (e.g. face, content, criterion, construct) and reliablilty offered?

Study Design:

What specific design was used?

Was a control group present? If so, how was comparability of groups established?

How were the subjects/objects assigned to conditions? Was randomization used?

Was there a clear intervention or treatment?

To what extent were threats to internal and /or external validity controlled?

Were efforts made to test for alternative explanations of findings?

Sample:

Describe the population and sample. Was the population appropriate for the research question? Did the sample adequately represent the population?

What sampling procedure was used? Was it appropriate?

Was the sample size appropriate? How was this determined? Was there a discussion of power?

The Results Section:

Are the results clearly reported and explained?

Does the order of presentation of the results paralell the order of presentation of the methods?

Are the results reasonable and expected, or are they unexpected?

Are there results that are introduced that are not preceded by an appropriate discussion in the Methods section?

Techniques of Data Collection

How are data collected? Is it appropriate?

If the study involved questionnaire or survey data, what was the response rate? Was a response/non-response analysis performed? What bias may have resulted?

Modes of Data Analysis and Interpretation

How are data analyzed?

Is there a discussion of data cleaning or presence/handling of missing data?

Is there discussion of alpha levels?

Describe the statistical analysis (or analyses) used.

Was the statistical analysis congruent with the study design?

The Discussion Section:

Is the discussion concise?

If a hypothesis was proposed, do the authors state whether it was verified or falsified? Alternatively, if no hypothesis was proposed, do the authors state whether their research question was answered?

Are the authors' conclusions justified by the results found in the study?

Were the conclusions (verbal statements) consistent with the empirical findings (data)? Is there evidence of bias in reporting the results?

Were there any other extraneous variables which could lead to an alternative explanation?

If there are unexpected results, do the authors adequately account for them?

Do the authors note limitations of the study? Are there additional limitations that should be noted?

Figures and Graphs:

Are the figures and graphs appropriate and are they appropriately labeled? Would a different figure better illustrate the findings?

Do the figures and graphs adequately show the important results? Should arrows or asterisks be added to depict important or subtle findings?

Do the figure legends provide a clear explanation that allows the figures and graphs to be understood without referring to the remainder of the manuscript?

Tables:

If there are tables, do they appropriately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added or removed?

The Reference Section:

Does the reference list follow appropriate AMA (or APA) format?

Does the reference list contain errors (e.g. inability to locate reference using supplied information)?

Have the authors appropriately represented the salient points in the articles in the reference list? Alternatively, have the authors misquoted or plagiarized the references?

Are the references current?

Are there more references than necessary?

Feedback:

Do you feel that this study was well done? Would you recommend it to a peer?

To what extent can the findings be generalized?

Would you update your practices based on the findings? Why/why not?

List at least 3 changes that might make this research study more robust.