The last line of logic that stuck out to me is experimental originality. This line of logic provides material that contributes information and research to the field. It also makes sure the research has not been excessively repeated in other studies. Dr. Inge has brought new data to this field of study. He has answered questions that have not been addressed before making his primary study original. By analyzing outcomes of each patient’s surgery after three years, these authors brought a rare study to the field that will hopefully boost others to start researching on these less popular questions. Overall, the scope, fruitfulness, and experimental originality allowed Dr. Inge’s research article to have structure and makes for a valid argument.
…show more content…
Limitations are included throughout the discussion section and occasionally minor limitations are placed into the materials or methods section. In this primary study the limitations are placed in the discussion section. Although there are many strengths in this study including: having distinctive geographical sites that the patients are enrolled in, the design used to gather data, and a reliable group maintenance, there are also limitations. Following these strengths are the limitations from the small size of the subpopulation cohorts, for example patients with diabetes or elevated blood pressure. Also, “…the observational nature of the study introduces heterogeneity into the data set, including unmeasured covariates and imbalances in race, sex, and socioeconomic status.” Dr. Inge also found they needed to incorporate a placebo group to compare and put into perspective the health changes of the participants with non-surgical treated patients. Lastly, 15% of the participants failed to show up to their three-year visit, particularly the laboratory testing which resulted in 24% of participants data missing. These limitations do not mean this study was inaccurate or failed, it allows future studies to thrive off these limitations and improve the
Limitations are included throughout the discussion section and occasionally minor limitations are placed into the materials or methods section. In this primary study the limitations are placed in the discussion section. Although there are many strengths in this study including: having distinctive geographical sites that the patients are enrolled in, the design used to gather data, and a reliable group maintenance, there are also limitations. Following these strengths are the limitations from the small size of the subpopulation cohorts, for example patients with diabetes or elevated blood pressure. Also, “…the observational nature of the study introduces heterogeneity into the data set, including unmeasured covariates and imbalances in race, sex, and socioeconomic status.” Dr. Inge also found they needed to incorporate a placebo group to compare and put into perspective the health changes of the participants with non-surgical treated patients. Lastly, 15% of the participants failed to show up to their three-year visit, particularly the laboratory testing which resulted in 24% of participants data missing. These limitations do not mean this study was inaccurate or failed, it allows future studies to thrive off these limitations and improve the