quantitative systematic report based on the result of perception of black and white people

quantitative systematic report based on the result of perception of black and white people


This paper is a critique of the article titled “Healthcare utilizing deliberate discussion linking events (HUDDLE): A systematic review” by Glymph et al (2015). The aim of the critique is to evaluate the content in each section of the article as well as identify the strengths and weaknesses of the research process to justify the relevance of the paper as a piece of evidence in nursing.

Research Design

The study by Glymph et al (2015) adopted a systematic review of literature as its main research design. The purpose of the study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use if huddle in healthcare. Through a search of databases mainly Proquest, Medline and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the scholars identified past studies that were relevant to the research topic, and focused on their evaluation to provide evidence on the effectiveness of huddle communication and preoperative discussions

According to Schlosser (2006) systematic review of literature is one of the most effective designs in evidence-based studies. The design enables the researcher to explore and review the accounts of previous scholars on the issue, to avail evidence-based findings on the matter. The effectiveness and efficacy of various interventions in health care are never obtained in a convincing manner with a single research. As such, multiple research papers are needed to be evaluated to avail sound evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention. Systematic reviews that employ meta-analysis studies are more appropriate in the evaluation of the performance of an intervention. The systematic research design adopted by Glymph et al (2015) is effective in enabling the researchers accomplish the purpose of the study. The focus on random control trials and meta-analysis studies in the review further enhances the efficacy and the effectiveness of the research design to evaluate the importance of huddle communication in nursing.

Issues of bias were minimized through the systematic process of data collection, to ensure only credible papers are included in the review. As much as some subjective approach may be employed in the search and selection of the relevant articles, the inclusion of a systematic review system significantly reduce the possible causes of bias in research.


The sample in the study by Glymph et al (2015) referred to the number of peer-reviewed journals included in the study. In systematic review study design, the desired sample is achieved through an inclusion and exclusion criteria that define the kind of papers that should be included in the view. The criteria are essential in ensuring that only quality paper is included in the review. Besides being a meta-analysis of random control trial papers, an article was only included for review when it was written in English, peer-reviewed and is available in full-text. The sample of the papers included in the study was properly described and could be replicated in another study. Sample bias was reduced significantly due to the inclusion and exclusion criteria that the researchers adopted in the selection of the papers.

Even though the sample size was low and did not give a proper representation of the target population. Out of the more than 2000 articles reviewed on huddle communication, only 11 met the inclusion criteria and were included as the sample. Nevertheless, the chosen papers promised the attainment of quality and reliable findings, which was the major focus of the study, justifying their inclusion in the review.

Data Collection and Procedures

The data collection process entailed the critical appraisal of research studies to draw secondary data either qualitatively or quantitatively. According to Ganann, Ciliska and Thomas (2010) critical appraisal of primary research to obtain comprehensive findings on a research issue provide the most valid and reliable findings. While the researchers failed to explicitly outline the research questions or objectives, the review conducted assured the attainment of quality findings based on the purpose of the study.

The major issue of concern on the data collection process was the minimal number of papers included in the review. The database search was done twice to ensure all relevant papers on the topic are retrieved. However, the researcher needed to have considered conducting a grey literature search to avoid bias during the data collection process and to find more papers that the database search might have missed (Ganann, Ciliska & Thomas, 2010). The inclusion of such search would have enhanced the comprehensiveness of the findings attained.


The systematic review method adopted by Glymph et al (2015) yielded qualitative data. The researcher focused on summarizing the works of the previous scholars without detailing their numerical findings. While such a qualitative approach may interfere with the possibility of obtaining objective findings, it gives an opportunity for gaining a comprehensive understanding on the issue of preoperative briefing as reported by the previous scholars.  Systematic review of literature is a rigorous report that produces quality findings whether reported qualitatively or quantitatively. The results attained are thus effective in addressing the issue under investigation.


Despite the limitations of systematic reviews research design, the research process promises the attainment of valid and reliable findings. The review of primary meta-analysis and random-control trial studies leads to the attainment of evidence-based recommendations on huddle communication and preoperative briefing. Systematic reviews are considered effective in the evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of an intervention, further justifying the credibility of the findings attained in reference to huddle communication. The results achieved provided meaningful evidence on the importance of huddle communication in improving communication between anesthesia providers and other healthcare professionals.










Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science5(1), 56.

Glymph, D. C., Olenick, M., Barbera, S., Brown, E. L., Prestianni, L., & Miller, C. (2015). Healthcare utilizing deliberate discussion linking events (HUDDLE): A systematic review. AANA J83(3), 183-188.

Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The role of systematic reviews in evidence-based practice, research, and development. Focus15, 1-4.