For this assessment task you will need to address and critique the attached literature review (Milinis et al., 2018) by addressing each of the following questions: 1. What is the review purpose,...

Running Head: HEALTHCARE        1
HEALTHCARE        8
HEALTHCARE
CRITIQUING A RESEARCH ARTICLE
Critique Point 1
The objective behind the study presented by Milinis et al. (2018) was to systematically review the evidences available to measure the effectiveness of graduated compression stockings (GCS). Effectiveness of GCS was to be measured in conjugation with extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in order to prevent the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among surgical patients.
Critique Point 2
It would be essential to consider that protocol articles are only considered for proposed or ongoing research, which has not yet started (Moher et al., 2015). The cu
ent study presented by Milinis et al. (2018) is a systematic review and systematic reviews encourages the prospective registration in PROSPERO or Open Science Framework. The review protocol for cu
ent study was published on PROSPERO (CRD42017062655) and the link to the same has been provided below.
https:
www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=62655
Critique Point 3
There were numerous inclusion criteria for this research such as the research article or journal must reflect ‘minimum of 21 days of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis’. The studies, which documented continuous use of GCS and the adults were above 18 years of age, were also included. Studies with Pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis including low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, fondaparinux, vitamin K antagonists and direct oral anticoagulants were also included. Likewise, studies, in which patient received prophylactic-dose pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone or in combination with GCS along with patients, undergoing orthopaedic or abdominal surgery was also an inclusion criterion. Finally, studies, in which VTE was confirmed by imaging were also included in this review.
Critique Point 4
Studies included in this review were the ones that documented continuous use of GCS, in which patients were undergoing orthopaedic or abdominal surgery and other inclusion criteria presented above. While the studies, which were excluded in this review were those where two mechanical methods of thromboprophylaxis were combined, Patients reflected contraindications to GCS or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, patients were younger than 18 years along with the studies where patients were pregnant or having clotting disorders.
Critique Point 5
Two reviewers independently conducted the literature search for this review. Databases, which were searched in order to retrieve relevant literature, included Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane li
ary, along with ClinicalTrial.gov.
Critique Point 6
Wohlin (2014) presented that search terms plays a major role in the retrieval of literature for any research study because it helps in identification of literature, which would be more relevant to the study context. However, it would be essential to...