The use of critical appraisal guidelines to assess the validity of research findings has received a growing increasing focused in many healthcare practiced. This idea supports the use of evidence-based practice to provide better information of which a section of research can be applied in Public Health Practiced. This paper report was set out to critically appraised a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial: titled Chloramphenicol treatment for acute infective conjunctivitis in children aged 6 months to 12 years with a clinical diagnosis of conjunctivitis in primary care. The paper will highlight the key concept of the trial as well as illustrating some limitation of the published trials. It will also focus on the aspect of proper patient selection as well as the quality of the main study. These appraisal will also outline the fundamental framework of the quality of research evidence that could be used to inform Public Health based practiced and policy program delivery.
Acute infective conjunctivitis is an inflammation of the conjunctiva. It is recorded as one of the most common eye problems in the primary care and account for up to 1% of GP consultation in the UK. Some of the clinical features of conjunctivitis include mild swollen eyelid and mucopurulent eye discharge (Fuloria and Kreiter, 2002). The infectious of conjunctivitis could be viral, bacteria or allergic, and diagnosis is usually made on the basis of a clinical history and examination. However, the pathophysiology of conjunctivitis is well described by (Terry Kyle) in in essentials of pediatric nursing. When virus or bacterial come in contact with palpebral conjunctiva the immune system react resulting in inflammation. In this paper appraisal the researcher present a good clinical research scenario within the Public Health context. However the author did not clearly display the basic background of clinical case instead but only provide little information on how it affect the Healthcare Settings. However, the writer provide some appropriate reason and good justification for choosing the study this has meet the criteria of the way of thinking describe by (Yin 1984 and Cavaye 1996). They argue that providing a clear justification is very crucial in choosing a research study because this will have an important impact on every aspect of the research process. Similarly, study participant section is good because the author used double-blind randomized control trial in which patients are randomly assigned either to received chloramphenicol or placebo treatment in a ratio 1:1 in determining effect of topical chloramphenicol treatment for children diagnosed with acute infective conjunctivitis presenting in primary care.
Furthermore, the inclusion or exclusion criteria used in this study is good because the author clearly explain who are the target population this is perhaps good selection because the group are similar from the beginning by ensuring all study participant...