Research paper reading Assignment
* The objective of this assignment is to introduce students to scientific research conducted in the field of Managerial Accounting that is targeting the UAE business environment as an example.
I have selected for this course the following research paper:
Joshi, P. L. Bremser, W. G. Deshmukh, A. and Kumar, R. (2011). “Diffusion of Management Accounting Practices in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries”. Accounting Perspectives, Vol. 10, No. 1.
Provide a summary of this research paper. Your summary should reflect your understanding of the research paper.
*Instructions & guidelines:
Research articles use a standard format to clearly communicate information about an experiment. A research article usually has seven major sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and References.
1. Reading the Article
Allow enough time. Before you can write about the research, you have to understand it. This can often take a lot longer than most people realize. Only when you can clearly explain the study in your own words to someone who hasn’t read the article are you ready to write about it.
2. Read for depth, read interactively.
After you have highlighted the main points, read each section several times. As you read, ask yourself these questions:
• How does the design of the study address the research questions?
• How convincing are the results? Are any of the results surprising?
• What does this study contribute toward answering the original question?
• What aspects of the original question remain unanswered?
3. Scan the article
Use your knowledge to find the main points. Briefly look at each section to identify:
• the research question and reason for the study (stated in the Introduction)
• the hypothesis or hypotheses tested (Method)
• the findings (Results, including tables and figures)
• how the findings were interpreted (Discussion)
Underline key sentences or write the key point of each paragraph in the margin. Although the abstract can help you to identify the main points, you cannot rely on it exclusively, because it contains very condensed information. Remember to focus on the parts of the article that are most relevant.
4. Writing the Summary
Like an abstract in a published research article, the purpose of an article summary is to give the reader a brief overview of the study. To write a good summary, identify what information is important and condense that information for your reader. The better you understand a subject, the easier it is to explain it thoroughly and briefly.
5. Edit for completeness and accuracy.
Add information for completeness where necessary. More commonly, if you understand the article, you will need to cut redundant or less important information. Stay focused on the research question, be concise, and avoid generalities.
6. Edit for style.
Write to an intelligent, interested, naive, and slightly lazy audience (e.g., yourself, your classmates). Expect your readers to be interested, but don’t make them struggle to understand you. Include all the important details; don’t assume that they are already understood.
• Eliminate wordiness, including most adverbs (“very”, “clearly”). “The results clearly showed that there was no difference between the groups” can be shortened to “There was no significant difference between the groups”.
• Use specific, concrete language. Use precise language and cite specific examples to support assertions. Avoid vague references (e.g. “this illustrates” should be “this result illustrates”).
• Use scientifically accurate language. For example, you cannot “prove” hypotheses (especially with just one study). You “support” or “fail to find support for” them.
• Rely primarily on paraphrasing, not direct quotes. Direct quotes are seldom used in scientific writing. Instead, paraphrase what you have read. To give due credit for information that you paraphrase, cite the author’s last name and the year of the study (Smith, 1982).
• Re-read what you have written. Ask others to read it to catch things that you’ve missed.
Plagiarism is always a risk when summarizing someone else’s work. To avoid it:
• Take notes in your own words. Using short notes or summarizing key points in your own words forces you to rewrite the ideas into your own words later.
• If you find yourself sticking closely to the original language and making only minor changes to the wording, then you probably don’t understand the study
Objective: Both foremost and back methodologies are utilized as a part of the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) because of spinal stenosis or solidification of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL). In any case, the ideal procedure stays dubious. To look at the clinical outcomes between the two methodologies, a meta-investigation was directed. Strategies: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were sought up to July 2014 without dialect confinement. The reference arrangements of chose looks contrasting foremost and back methodologies were screened physically. Subgroup investigation was directed by the reason for MCSM. A settled impact show was utilized for pool information, and an irregular impacts display for heterogeneous information. Mean contrast (MD) and chances proportion (OR) was utilized for persistent and dichotomous results, individually. Results: Seventeen articles were chosen in this examination, which were all non-randomized controlled trials. There were huge contrast between two methodologies for post-Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (MD=1.13, 95% CI=0.41, 1.86), activity time (MD=67.43, 95% CI=16.94, 117.91), post-scope of movement (ROM) (MD=1.86, 95% CI=0.61, 3.12), length of stay (MD=-1.54, 95% CI=-2.25, - 0.5)and confusion rate (OR=2.28, 95% CI=1.52, 3.41). In the interim, there were no critical contrast for pre-JOA, blood misfortune, neurological recuperation rate, pre-ROM, pre-and post-Nurick review. Conclusions: Based on this meta-examination, post-JOA and length of stay are altogether better in the foremost gathering, yet high confusion rate and no evident distinction for neurological recuperation rate made it important to finish up more trials with high caliber to additionally affirm the conclusion. Watchwords: multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy; clinical results; meta-examination Presentation Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is caused by pressure of the spinal rope because of degeneration. Spinal stenosis and hardening of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL) have been considered as the two normal reasons for CSM. CSM can be dealt with by an assortment of front, back, or joined foremost and back surgical methodologies. The choice to utilize a foremost or a back approach relies upon numerous components, for example, the reason of spinal line pressure, the quantity of vertebral sections, cervical arrangement, and the specialist's nature with the techniques1. Foremost methodologies as a rule incorporate front cervical corpectomy with combination (ACCF) and cervical discectomy with combination (ACDF), while the ordinary back methodologies include laminectomy and laminoplasty2. Front decompression and combination has been effectively utilized for CSM including maybe a couple levels3, 4. In any case, disappointments will be watched when at least three levels are included (multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy, MCSM) with foremost approaches5, 6. Contrasted and foremost methodologies, back procedures give a circuitous channel decompression by enabling the spinal line to glide far from ventral pressure. The hindrances of back approach were likewise noted, for instance, neck torment, loss of lordotic bend, segmental unsteadiness, and late neurologic deterioration7. Albeit numerous examinations looking at the two methodologies have been done, the ideal approach giving agreeable decompression stays to be resolved. No orderly investigation of the two methodologies in the treatment of MCSM has been distributed yet. Keeping in mind the end goal to give a premise to choosing, a meta-investigation of clinical consequences of foremost methodologies contrasted and back methodologies for patients with MCSM was performed. Materials and techniques Writing look The creators looked through different databases, includingPubMed, Embase and The Cochrane library up to June 11, 2014 without dialect limitation. Furthermore, the reference arrangements of chose looks and related articles that not yet incorporated into the electronic database were screened physically. The seeking strings were (1) myelopathy or cervical spondylosis or cervical vertebrae or cervical stenosis; (2) Corpectomy or foremost cervical discectomy or front decompression or ventral; (3) laminoplasty or laminectomy or back decompression or dorsal, with the administrator "AND". Writing screening Articles were inspected by the accompanying criteria: (1) The inquires about were planned as randomized controlled trials, case-control studies or companion examines; (2) Patients with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) because of spinal stenosis or hardening of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL); (3) The front methodologies amass was dealt with by foremost cervical trench decompression; (4) The back methodologies gather was dealt with by back cervical channel decompression; (5) The results was clinical endpoint, as neurological recuperation rates, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, scope of movement (ROM), Nurick review, intricacy rate, task time, blood misfortune, and length of remain in healing center. Likewise, there are five avoidance criteria for writing screening. These were: (1) The cases followed up short of what one year; (2) Patients with MSCM were caused by tumors, injury, delicate circle herniation, or past surgery; (3) Patients without MSCM; (4) Researches without control; (5) non-nature writings, for example, audits, letters and remarks. Information extraction and concentrates quality evaluation Two specialists separately evaluated each conceivably qualified investigation and afterward removed information from the included examinations. Differences were settled through discourse. The data removed including the creator, distribution year, zone, ages, sex, number of patients, follow-up period, surgical techniques and results. Besides, We utilized the Cochrane8 for evaluating the nature of randomized investigations, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)9 for nonrandomised sudies or companion considers. separately. Measurable investigation The point of this meta-examination was to assess the dissimilarity of all results, and all investigations were performed by RevMan5.2 programming. Weighted mean distinction (WMD) and 95% certainty interim (CI) were computed for Continuous factors, while Odds proportions (ORs) and 95% CI were figured for dichotomous information. Measurement heterogeneity was distinguished utilizing chi-square test and I2 test. On the off chance that P<0.05 or I2 >50%, which showed heterogeneity exists among all outcomes, arbitrary impacts demonstrate was connected. In the event that P≥0.05 or I2 ≤50%, which demonstrated heterogeneity, the settled impacts display was selected10. The distribution predisposition was tried by developing a channel plot. Results Indexed lists A stream chart of the writing hunt and study choice was appeared in fig.1. Basing on the previously mentioned criteria, we sought 1216, 1710, and 13 articles from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library individually. An aggregate of 2234 articles were stayed subsequent to barring copy productions. Also, a sum of 2191 articles that befuddled the included criteria were avoided in the wake of screening titles and edited compositions. Along these lines, an aggregate of 43 articles were recognized. Of these, sixteen articles were prohibited subsequent to perusing the edited compositions: ten articles did not think about the impacts between foremost methodologies and back methodologies and six articles were audits. Ten articles were avoided for the accompanying reasons: two articles were not about multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy, one was self-controlled examination, four were about MCSM because of delicate plate herniation, and three articles did not have measurement information. Manual inquiry of references did not locate any extra articles. Therefore, an aggregate of 17 articles1, 6, 11-25 were distinguished for the Meta examination. Benchmark qualities As appeared in Table 1, seventeen investigations were incorporated for our meta examination. Patients with MSCM in 10 studies1, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19-21, 24, 25 were caused by spinal stenosis, and 5 studies6, 13, 14, 18, 23 were caused by hardening of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL), two studies16, 22 caused by the two kinds above. The articles were distributed from 1992 to 2013. The mean ages extended from 51.8 to 66.8 years of age. The example measure, sex proportion, follow-up period, and surgical strategies for each investigation are recorded in Table 1. All investigations included were non-randomized controlled trails. The characteristics of all examinations were evaluated utilizing Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS). The scale for non-randomized controlled trails and associate examinations was utilized to distribute a greatest of 9 focuses for the nature of choice (4), likeness (1), and introduction (3) or results (3). As appeared in supplement table 1, five investigations scored 7 focuses and twelve scored 8 focuses. Consequently, all examinations were of a moderately high caliber. Clinical results The principle results in this Meta investigation were preoperative JOA score, postoperative JOA score, task time, blood misfortune, intricacy rate and neurological recuperation rates. As indicated by patients write, contemplates were isolated into three subgroups: subgroup spinal stenosis, subgroup OPLL, subgroup spinal stenosis and OPLL. The consequences of heterogeneity for preoperative JOA score was P=0.21, I2=22%, showing no heterogeneity. So the settled impacts show was chosen and MD was 0.39 (95% CI =0.09, 0.69, P=0.01) (Fig. 2). Be that as it may, with the exception of subgroup spinal stenosis and OPLL had essentially contrasts, the other two subgroups had no altogether contrasts in the preoperative JOA. By differentiate, there has a measurably noteworthiness in the postoperative JOA score (MD=1.13, 95% CI =0.41, 1.86) among the three subgroups. Be that as it may, both subgroup spinal stenosis and subgroup OPLL demonstrated clear heterogeneity (Fig. 3). Examination between front methodologies and back methodologies for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a meta investigation Dynamic Objective: Both foremost and back methodologies are utilized as a part of the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM) because of spinal stenosis or solidification of back longitudinal tendon (OPLL). In any case, the ideal procedure stays dubious. To look at the clinical outcomes between the two methodologies, a meta-investigation was directed. Strategies: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were sought up to July 2014 without dialect confinement. The reference arrangements of chose looks contrasting foremost and back methodologies were screened physically. Subgroup investigation was directed by the reason for MCSM. A settled impact show was utilized for pool information, and an irregular impacts display for heterogeneous information. Mean contrast (MD) and chances proportion (OR) was utilized for persistent and dichotomous results, individually. Results: Seventeen articles were chosen in this examination, which were all non-randomized controlled trials. There were huge contrast between two methodologies for post-Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score (MD=1.13, 95% CI=0.41, 1.86), activity time (MD=67.43, 95% CI=16.94, 117.91), post-scope of movement (ROM) (MD=1.86, 95% CI=0.61, 3.12), length of stay (MD=-1.54, 95% CI=-2.25, - 0.5)and confusion rate (OR=2.28, 95% CI=1.52, 3.41). In the interim, there were no critical contrast for pre-JOA, blood misfortune, neurological recuperation rate, pre-ROM, pre-and post-Nurick review. Conclusions: Based on this meta-examination, post-JOA and length of stay are altogether better in the foremost gathering, yet high confusion rate and no evident distinction for neurological recuperation rate made it important to finish up more trials with high caliber to additionally affirm the conclusion. >GET ANSWER