The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize the student with a systematic review or a meta-analysis appraisal using the PRISMA checklist. You will appraise an article that is assigned by course...

The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize the student with a systematic review or a meta-analysis appraisal using the PRISMA checklist. You will appraise an article that is assigned by course faculty that is either a systematic review or meta-analysis based on this PICOT question: In women 65 years and older does ASA for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease vs no ASA improve cardiovascular outcomes (MI and stroke risk)? The research article for review for the PRISMA appraisal is: ASA metaanalysisArchIntMed 2012.pdfPreview the documentView in a new window PRISMA checklist in Word format: PRISMA 2009 Checklist-3.docPreview the documentView in a new window submit the paper with title page and references in 6th edition APA format to further clarify their answers to the PRISMA checklist along with the completed PRISMA checklist. This paper is to be written following the guidelines in the APA manual (6th ed.). It should be a short paper (6-8 pages excluding references and title page), double-spaced and typed. The font size should be 12. Margins should be 1”. Include a Running head on title page and page numbers on all pages. Opening paragraph should explain the purpose of the paper. Then list the questions on the checklist and write a brief justification of your answer on the checklist. Utilize outside resources (articles) to justify and add substance to your answer. Then write a brief critique at the end of your paper that addresses the following: Explain the usefulness of the research report as a contribution to knowledge on the PICOT questions posed, as well as focusing on the clarity of the identified research problem and questions, and the completeness of the supporting literature. The consistency between the research problem, questions and/or hypotheses, and the design should also be addressed. Identify threats to internal and external validity and the adequacy of the design to control these threats. Elements to be considered when discussing the specific areas of the checklist include: A. Overall presentation: Is the report logically consistent, i.e. are there leaps in logic? Is the writing style clear and concise? Does the abstract make you want to read the article and does it accurately represent the study? B. Introduction: Is the purpose of the report clearly stated? Is the significance of the problem clear? Is the literature review current and appropriate to the study? Does the literature review address the issues raised in the study? Is there evidence of a conceptual/theoretical framework for the study? Are the hypotheses or research questions clearly stated? C. Method: Is the sample adequately described? Is sample size and statistical power analysis addressed? Is the sampling procedure clear? Is the study protocol described in sufficient detail? Are the instruments described and does each measure the concept it is intended to measure? Is the design appropriate for the research questions/intent? Are threats to internal and external validity identified and addressed adequately? D. Results: How large was the intervention effect? How precise was the estimate of the intervention effect? Were all-important outcomes considered? E. Discussion: Are the main findings of the study reiterated? Does the author compare the findings of the study with previous research? Does the author offer hypotheses regarding findings that are at odds with previous work? If so, are these hypotheses consistent with the findings? Are the likely intervention benefits worth the potential harm and costs? Are practice, education and future research implications discussed? Use 5-6 reference