Authoritative in Answering My Question Not Only

¶ … authoritative in answering my question not only since it originates from a reliable source, but also because it itself is obviously professional and of high quality.

There are numerous markers that indicate this. Firstly the title is concise and to the point stating the question followed by method of inquiry. The Abstract summarizes the article succinctly explaining objective (to investigate whether Paracetamol increases duration of fever and is safe when used with children); Design (a randomized double blind placebo controlled trial) the methodology; Results (with statistical abbreviations); and Conclusion (Paracetamol is effective on all counts).

Professionalism is further shown by a brief introduction that covers the purpose of the research and culminates in the hypothesis: (i) that use of Paracetamol prolongs fever clearance time, and that (ii) rate of decline in temperature with Paracetamol administration imitates that of placebo.

The subjects and method is thoroughly described in a way that anyone wishing to simulate experiment can do so. Exclusion conditions were considered so that only those participants relevant to the study were selected; informed consent was obtained from participants; and approval for study gained from IRB. Age of participants was appropriate (6 months- 6 years) with the sample size (168 divided into control and experimental group) being sufficiently large for results to be reliably generated (Breakwell et al., 2007). Researchers describe their randomization procedure as well as their intervention and monitoring of Paracetamol's effect on temperature, mentioning how baseline information was generated and how temperature readings were monitored throughout. They describe the outcome variables and the statistical methods used as well as pertinent details. The results include appropriate and relevant numerical details, supported by figures and charts when appropriate. The statistical findings are clearly discussed with reference to Tables. The figures themselves appear crisp, professional, and clear, with the Tables and graphs drawn according to APA specifications.

Finally, the Discussion summarizes the objective of the trial as well as results and discusses the results, concluding with a paragraph on the results of the study and the recommendation of the researchers consequent to their discoveries: "In view of these results, we advocate to continue the practice of using Paracetamol of intermittent antipyresis in children having acute repioratory tract infection." (910).

QUESTION 2

Researchers concluded that Paracetamol showed greater effect than placebo did in providing early fever relief without increasing the duration of the fever and in achieving effective antipyresis. Adverse effects were minimum.

Researchers can generalize their findings due to the thoroughness of their research, the sufficient largeness of the sample size, their care in excluding potentially confounding details and in focusing exclusively on uncomplicated respiratory tract infection; a well-matched population and age sample; and clear operationalization of outcome measure. The study was also conducted over a sufficient span of time (one year). Cross-sectional diversity was not entered into, but this may not have been necessary in this type of study. Finally, treatment and outcome measures were consistently and thoroughly monitored, taking as many considerations into account as possible in order to exclude potentially confounding situations.

The authors find the finding useful and I agreed with them, particularly since they antedate their study with the observation that recent studies show that antipyretics in fever may actually prolong certain symptoms and that a Cochrane review indicated Paracetamol to be a week control. Their recommendation -- useful to my clinical question of how to treat the baby and generally, useful in a clinical context - is continuing "the practice of using Paracetamol of intermittent antipyresis in children having acute respiratory tract infection." (910).

QUESTION 3

The authors use references that support their primary contentions and are applicable to the article. Secondary references are used, excluding their instance of the Cochrane review and the recent studies that prompted them to carry out their research. Since all references are related and of scientific quality, their inclusion adds to quality of report. Inclusion of graphs, Tables, and other figures reinforces their argument. Not all the references are recent, but since researchers are dealing with a classical problem, the age of references does not matter.

QUESTION 4

The similarity between the other two articles is that tall talk about fever in the case of children. The research of Gheri et al. (2005) too is experimental but their objective was investigating efficacy of medical and nursing staff treatment of fever in feverish children. Sullivan and Ferrar (2011), on the other hand, conducted a review -- rather than experimental study -- on the best means for treating febrile children and whether difference exists between efficacy of acetaminophen and ibuprofen.