article feedback

Article feedback
Name
Institution

AOTA’S EVIDENCE EXCHANGE
CRITICALLY APPRAISED PAPER (CAP) WORKSHEET
General Instructions: Please insert your responses in the boxes provided, which will expand if more room is needed. If the information requested is not reported or not applicable to the article, please indicate in your response and provide a rationale as needed. Refer to the CAP Guidelines for submission criteria and detailed instructions on how to fill out each section of the worksheet.
CITATION AND DOI NUMBER
The citation is well formatted according to the APA style. The citation is also a relevant reference since it discusses the Motor Imagery and thus can provide an answer to the PICO question. 5 Points
CLINICAL BOTTOM LINE
Briefly discuss how the evidence can be used to inform and guide occupational therapy practice (i.e., within the scope of traditional or emerging practice) AND how practitioners can use the evidence relative to the target population and practice setting. Implications need to be reported in consideration of the strength of the evidence (i.e., type of study design, level of evidence, identified study limitations, internal validity rating, to what population results may generalize).
The population to which the results can be generalized is not provided. The article has only discussed the effectiveness of the GMI and MT but has not given guidance to the medical practitioners on how to apply the technology to promote treatment to the target population.
2 Points
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE(S)
The article research objective does not endeavor to show if the GMI and MT are an effective treatment in decreasing pain among patients with the complex syndrome.

It only aims to discuss the effect of GMI and MT on the patients with pain. 3 Points
DESIGN TYPE AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Very well, it is a systematic review of an article. 8 points
PARTICIPANT SELECTION
How were participants recruited and selected to participate?
Does not provide the selection criteria but only discusses research criteria. Information provided does not answer the question. 2 Points
Inclusion criteria:
Good inclusion criteria but should have also included participants response.
Exclusion criteria:
The CRPS type 2 Studies should not exclude the type 1 studies for the GMT and MI since the studies can be used comprehensively to examine the effect of the treatment to the different levels of the condition. 8 Points
PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
N= Small population reduces efficiency
#/ % Male: Not relevant #/ % Female: Not relevant
Ethnicity: Not relevant
Disease/disability diagnosis: The disease is well mentioned
INTERVENTION AND CONTROL GROUPS (Add groups if necessary)
Group 1:
A brief description of the intervention Good description. Discusses the training of participants
How many participants in the group? A good number for both the GMI and MT treatments
Where did the intervention take place? Not necessary
Who delivered? Should be indicated since only a medical physician should be allowed to deliver the treatment
How often? The time required too much commitment
For how long? Impossible to manage the intervention daily
Group 2:
A brief description of the intervention Well indicated
How many participants in the group? Good number
Where did the intervention take place? Not necessary
Who delivered? Should be specified as a health physician
How often? Should be just once in a day
For how long? The clinicians should provide
Group 3:
A brief description of the intervention The intervention was not conducted
How many participants in the group? No participants were subjected to the study
Where did the intervention take place? Not indicated
Who delivered? No evaluator was available for the intervention
How often? Not indicated
For how long? Not indicated
INTERVENTION BIASES (Check yes or no, and include a brief explanation)
Contamination:
YES☐NO☒Explanation:
The contamination is unpredictable therefore not a quality bias for the intervention
Co-intervention:
YES☐NO☒Explanation:
Not necessary
The timing of intervention:
YES☐NO☒Explanation:
Timing should be indicated to provide the length of the treatment for further studies
The site of intervention:
YES☐NO☐Explanation:
Site of the intervention not included in the study
Use of different therapists to provide intervention:
YES☐NO☐Explanation:
Was not reported, but one therapist cannot perform the treatment thus the information is incomplete
Baseline equality:
YES☐NO☐Explanation:
No information on baseline equality

MEASURES AND OUTCOMES (Report only on measures relevant to occupational therapy practice)
Measure 1:
Name/type of measure used: Relevant for occupational therapy
What outcome is measured? Should not be an only pain but also the time interval for treatment
Is the measure reliable (as reported in the article)? YES☒NO ☐Not Reported ☐Is the measure valid (as reported in the article)? YES☒NO ☐Not Reported ☐When is the measure used? The measure can also be used before the time of treatment elapses
Measure 2:
Name/type of measure used: Should be the same to measure 1
What outcome is measured? swelling
Is the measure reliable as reported in the article? YES ☒NO ☐Not Reported ☐Is the measure valid as reported in the article? YES ☐NO ☐Not Reported ☒
When is the measure used? Not reported
Measure 3:
Name/type of measure used: Since there was no intervention as indicated above, it implies no outcome can be deduced. The same intervention can be applied for the group but with different measures
What outcome is measured? The response time by the participants to measure the effectiveness of the treatment
Is the measure reliable as reported in the article? YES ☐NO ☐Not Reported ☒Is the measure valid as reported in the article? YES ☐NO ☐Not Reported ☒
When is the measure used? The time interval was enough to make relevant analysis and predictions
MEASUREMENT BIASES (Check yes or no, and include a brief explanation)
Were the evaluators blind to treatment status?
YES☐NO☐Explanation:
Should be provided to examine the level of effectiveness among the evaluators
Was there a recall or memory bias?
YES☐NO☐Explanation:
Not necessary since cannot affect the treatment outcome
Other measurement biases: (List and explain)
Biases are real for every human, and I believe since the MI and GMI is a technology in health research it must challenge the professionals on its implementation. The intensity of the pain should also have been a factor to be considered
RESULTS
List key findings based on study objectives:
In patients with CRPS type 1, the treatment should reduce pain and increase functioning in the limbs. The article indicates that it improves pain which is not right
Was this study adequately powered (large enough to show a difference)? (Check yes or no, and include a brief explanation)
YES☐NO☒Explanation:
The number of studies is not asked but the quality of the studies.
Were the analysis methods appropriate? (Check yes or no, and include a brief explanation)
YES☐NO☒Explanation:
The analysis should be provided and must be relevant to health technology. If not reported like in the case then it implies the study was inadequate.
Were statistics appropriately reported (in written or table format)? (Check yes or no, and include a brief explanation)
YES☐NO☒Explanation:
Specify the tables used in the report of the statistics
Was participant dropout less than 20% in the total sample and balanced between groups? (Check yes or no, and include a brief explanation)
YES☐NO☒
Explanation:
Not necessary if no participants dropped out
What are the overall study limitations?
The limitations are correctly identified and are closely related to challenges in medical therapy
CONCLUSIONS
State the authors’ conclusions related to the research objectives.
According to the author’s outcomes, it is stated that the treatment improves pain which contradicts the conclusion part.
CAP AUTHOR INFORMATION
List full name(s) of all participants (i.e., students, faculty advisor) and credentials.
Not listed. It is not easy to provide a distinction between the groups used in the study
CAP Worksheet adapted from “Critical Review Form–Quantitative Studies.” Copyright 1998, by M. Law, D. Stewart, N. Pollack, L. Letts, J. Bosch, & M. Westmorland, McMaster University. Used with permission.
For personal or educational use only. All other uses require permission from AOTA.
Contact: www.copyright.com