This week you will search the literature in the school databases for article within 5 years of today’s date, that are appropriate for your PICOT question below. 

1.  Are elderly patients having total hip replacement surgery compared to those having history of fall, require more intervention to prevent fall during time at hospital?

The article is a QUNTITATIVE research study.

  • Read the first few sentences of methods section of your articles to assess what type of article you have
  • Critique each article using the appropriate Appraisal Forms. The form takes you through a reflection on WHY was research done-HOW was research done and WHAT was found.
  • Review rubric carefully to ensure all questions have been answered. Points are deducted for articles not loaded or if incorrect type of article submitted.
  • All answers to questions are brief and only 1- 2 sentences. Example: What group produced the guideline? Answer: US Preventive Services Task Force develops recommendations about preventive services based on a review of high-quality scientific evidence and publishes its recommendations on its website and or in a peer reviewed journal
  • Avoid any copying and pasting 7 or more words of content from the article or another source. Use your own words to create your answers. APA is not required for content of answers on template
  • APA is only required for your citation on the template.


Appraisal Guide:

Findings of a Quantitative Study






What was the purpose of the study (research questions, purposes, and hypotheses)?

How was the sample obtained?

What inclusion or exclusion criteria were used?

Who from the sample actually participated or contributed data (demographic or clinical profile and dropout rate)?

What methods were used to collect data (e.g., sequence, timing, types of data, and measures)?

Was an intervention tested?  Yes   No

1. How was the sample size determined?

2. Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups?

What are the main findings?


Is the study published in a source
that required peer review?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Did the data obtained and the
analysis conducted answer the
research question?  Yes   No   Not clear

Were the measuring instruments
reliable and valid?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Were important extraneous
variables and bias controlled?  Yes   No   Not clear

*If an intervention was tested,
answer the following five questions:  Yes   No   Not clear

1. Were participants randomly
assigned to groups and were
the two groups similar at the
start (before the intervention)?  Yes   No   Not clear

2. Were the interventions well
defined and consistently
delivered?  Yes   No   Not clear

3. Were the groups treated
equally other than the
difference in interventions?  Yes   No   Not clear

4. If no difference was found, was
the sample size large enough
to detect a difference if one existed?  Yes   No   Not clear

5. If a difference was found, are
you confident it was due to the
intervention?  Yes   No   Not clear

Are the findings consistent with
findings from other studies?  Yes   Some   No   Not clear

Are the findings credible?  Yes All   Yes Some   No

Clinical Significance

Note any difference in means, r2s, or measures of clinical effects (ABI, NNT, RR, OR)

*Is the target population clearly
described?  Yes   No   Not clear

*Is the frequency, association, or
treatment effect impressive enough
for you to be confident that the finding
would make a clinical difference if used
as the basis for care?  Yes   No   Not clear

Are the findings
clinically significant?  Yes All   Yes Some   No

* = Important criteria





strength and balance were collected to measure changes in
physical outcomes, and participants completed questionnaires
and interviews to assess program acceptability. Ninety-eight
participants (mean age=64, 71% women) registered for the
program; 77 (85%) completed baseline and follow-up meas-
urements. Positive ongoing feedback was received, and attend-
ance was good. On average across all sites, there was
significant improvement in participant leg strength (time to
complete 5 repetition sit-to-stand: 14 s to 11 s, p<0.01), bal-
ance (timed single-leg stance: 5.6 s to 7.8 s, p<0.01) and gait
speed (timed 4 meter walk: 0.51 m/s to 0.94 m/s, p<0.01),
and a significant decrease in BMI (p<0.01). Participants
reported both the exercise and yarning components of the
program were enjoyable and valuable. The Ironbark program
was effective in improving fall-related measures; funding has
now been received for a large scale cluster randomized trial
to test its effectiveness in preventing falls. Collaboration
between Aboriginal community leaders, Aboriginal health and
community service providers facilitated development of a
unique, culturally appropriate program that addressed a variety
of health, social and cultural needs, translating knowledge into
action for positive change.


1,2,3Krit Pongpirul*, 3Ratanaporn Tamee. 1Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand;
2Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA; 3Bumrungrad
International Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand


To compare and improve the diagnostic ability of standard fall
risk scores in a healthcare facility with diverse patient back-
ground. Medical records of 200 adult inpatients who fell
(case) and the other 200 randomly selected inpatients who
were admitted on the same day (control) at Bumrungrad Inter-
national Hospital (BIH) during 2014–2016 were reviewed. All
data required for calculating the Hendrich II Fall Risk Model
(H, 7 items), STRATIFY Risk Assessment Tool (S, 5 items),
Morse Fall Scale (M, 6 items), and Johns Hopkins Hospital
Fall Risk Assessment Tool (J, 7 items) were extracted. Eight
non-clinical determinants proposed by the Fall Risk Committee
were also analyzed (B1-B8). The diagnostic ability of the
standard scores were assessed using Area under the Receiver
Operating Characteristic (AUC) analysis.

The overall mean age was 54.22 years, female 45.25%,
Asian 47.00%. The cases were older (58.88 vs 49.57;
p<0.001) and male (61.64% vs 35.91%; p<0.001). More
Middle Eastern patients (67.48%) fell than other ethnic ori-
gins (Caucasian 54.43%, Asian 36.17%; p<0.001).

Five B determinants were significantly associated with fall
event: admission on the arrival day vs within 6 days after
arrival (B1: 100% vs 39.24%; p&l