need proof in turnitin

this is the guide for the cohort



Study Design:

Level of Evidence:

Introduction/Background Comments/Appraisal

Rationale provided for study

Significance of study provided

Current state of science or evidence clearly articulated

Problem statement or area identified

Research purpose clearly stated

Design Comments/Appraisal

Research question clearly defined and focused

Cohort identified

How was the exposed cohort selected?

Was there clear and defined selection criteria for inclusion of the exposed cohort?

What proportion of eligible subjects were included in exposed cohort?

How was the nonexposed cohort selected?

Was there clear and defined selection criteria for inclusion of the nonexposed cohort?

What proportion of the eligible subjects were included in the nonexposed cohort?

What was the exposure?

Was the exposure specific and measurable?

What was the potential for misclassification of the exposure?

How long was the cohort followed? Was this time period adequate?

Results/Findings Comments/Appraisal

What measures were implemented to reduce attrition? What was the rate of attrition?

Was there a difference in those who were lost to attrition and those who remained in the cohort study?

What were the primary and secondary study outcomes? How were the outcomes measured? Was the measurement valid and reliable?

Any surrogate outcome measures identified? How were the surrogate outcomes measured? Surrogate measurement was valid and reliable?

What was the comparative analysis of the exposed and nonexposed cohort?

Sample size appropriate based on power analysis; rationale for sample size estimation appropriate?

What was the strength of association between the exposure and outcome?

How accurate was the estimate of association between the exposure and outcome (confidence intervals or p-values)?

Bias/Confounders Comments/Appraisal

What was the potential for recall bias? What research strategies were used to reduce recall bias?

Was there potential for selection bias? What strategies were used to reduce selection bias?

Did the researcher identify all potential confounders?

What was the potential for information bias? What strategies were used to reduce information bias?

Was there potential for historical or maturation bias? What strategies were used to reduce historical or maturation bias?

Implications of Findings/Results Comments/Appraisal

What is the potential application of findings to practice?

Were all the clinically important outcomes considered?

How do the study findings fit within the existing state of science and available evidence?

Were the recommendations supported by the study findings?

Strengths Comments/Appraisal

What are the major strengths of the study design?

What are the major weaknesses of the study design?

Limitations Comments/Appraisal

What are the major limitations of the overall study design?

What are the major limitations of the sampling method?

What are the major limitations of the measurement methods?

What are the major limitations of the data management and analysis methods?

Ethical/Legal Comments/Appraisal

Did the research consider human subjects protection?

How were the human subjects rights protected?

Any ethical concerns identified?

Any potential conflicts of interest identified?

Any legal concerns identified?

attached the info the how the cohort should look like , with the info that you have to get it from the pdf.

remember that the way should look like but it is not same because the template change at the end 

Raffetin et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2023) 23:380

RESEARCH Open Access

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco
mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

BMC Infectious Diseases

Acceptance of diagnosis and management
satisfaction of patients with “suspected
Lyme borreliosis” after 12 months
in a multidisciplinary reference center:
a prospective cohort study
Alice Raffetin1,2,3*, Amal Chahour1, Julien Schemoul4, Giulia Paoletti5, Zhuoruo He1,6, Elisabeth Baux7,
Solène Patrat‑Delon8, Steve Nguala1, Pauline Caraux‑Paz1, Costanza Puppo9, Pauline Arias1, Yoann Madec10,
Sébastien Gallien1,3,11 and Julie Rivière2


Introduction Because patients with a “suspicion of Lyme borreliosis (LB)” may experience medical wandering and
difficult care paths, often due to misinformation, multidisciplinary care centers were started all over Europe a few
years ago. The aim of our study was to prospectively identify the factors associated with the acceptance of diagnosis
and management satisfaction of patients, and to assess the concordance of the medical health assessment between
physicians and patients 12 months after their management at our multidisciplinary center.

Methods We included all adults who were admitted to the Tick‑Borne Diseases Reference Center of Paris and the
Northern Region (TBD‑RC) (2017–2020). A telephone satisfaction survey was conducted 12 months after their first
consultation. It consisted of 5 domains and 13 items rated between 0 (lowest) and 10 (highest grade): (1)Reception;
(2)Care and quality of management; (3)Information/explanations given to the patients; (4)Current medical condition
and acceptance of the final diagnosis; (5)Overall appreciation. Factors associated with diagnosis acceptance and man‑
agement satisfaction at 12 months were identified using log


Epidemiological Research Study Review No. 1

SARS-CoV-2 Infection & Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children and Adolescents: A Case-Control Study

PMHNP Post-Master

NGR5674-Population Health, Epidemiology, & Statistical Problems

Professor Diane Gullett, RN, PhD, MSN, MPH

July 9, 2023

Epidemiological Research Study Review No. 1

The purpose of the review of “SARS-CoV-2 infection and pulmonary tuberculosis in children and adolescents: A case-control study” (2023) using a critical appraisal tool is to analyze the assertiveness of the study and research through a structured checklist that make an evaluation of the methodology against the set of criteria to provide theoretical and clinical quality. The present review covers the analytical appropriateness of the design and results evaluation.


Swanepoel, J., van der Zalm, M.M., Preiser, W. et al. (2023). SARS-CoV-2 infection and pulmonary tuberculosis in children and adolescents: a case-control study
. BMC Infect Dis,
23, 442.

Study Design: Observational unmatched case-control study

Level of Evidence: IV


Rationale Provided for Study

As a result of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-Cov-2) pandemic, it is possible that the risk of exposure to the disease can influence in the increase of the occurrence of infection with Tuberculosis (TB) in children and adolescents not only due to the physiologic affectation but also as a consequence of the exposure and the fragmentation of the medical/clinical services. The study pursues to determine if an exposure is associated with such outcome.

Significance of Study Provided

As both diseases are influenced by bio-social determinants where exist probable directional consequences in the risk factors and the incidence of morbidity and mortality, the study is focused on determining whether an association exists between previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and odds of TB to establish a clinical understanding between such relationship.

Current State of Science or Evidence clearly Articulated

The research with emphasis on the correlation between exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and TB has not completely understood and investigated. Not only SARS-CoV-2 is a novel disease which health implications at the long-term demand new study but also TB for child and adolescent has remained as an area neglected by research and programmatic prioritization. Only one cohort study and one clinical