AMSTAR Critical Appraisal of a Published Nursing Review
Description of the Paper and Findings
The article under review is “Effects of Napping on Sleepiness and Sleep-Related Performance Deficits in Night-Shift Workers: A Systematic Review.” The article analyses and synthesizes the scientific literature on the effect of sleep-related interventions on the quality of sleep and sleep-related performance. From the identified 13 relevant studies, the authors established that interventions, such as short naps during work-shift hours, decreased sleepiness and achieved better sleep-related performance.
- Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?
Yes. The review identifies the main elements of PICOT, including the population (night workers), intervention (planned naps during work-shift hours), and outcome (improvement in sleepiness and sleep-related performance). However, since it is a review of the literature and not an intervention study, it did not include a comparator group and timeframe.
- Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
Partially, yes. The article reviewers used a clear protocol to conduct their systematic review. They were guided by five research questions and an inclusion/exclusion criteria. However, they did not include a search strategy or a risk of bias assessment.
- Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
Yes. The review authors included the selection criteria to identify relevant sources for their study. They described the types of study designs that were excluded from the review. They did not include nap studies with descriptive or correlational designs. They incorporated reports of original experimental and quasi-experimental research.
- Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
The review fits the criteria for a partial yes. They searched at least two databases, provided a search strategy, and justified publication restrictions. They used “a literature search using the Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Health and Safety Science Abstracts databases and included English-language quasi-experimental and experimental studies” (Ruggiero & Redeker, 2014, p. 3). They revealed their comprehensive search strategy.
- Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
Yes. The study includes the consensus or agreement between the reviewers regarding how to select eligible studies for inclusion. Therefore, the response to this question is Yes. They retrieved 2,775 abstracts collaboratively.
- Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
Yes. The reviewers agreed on the data to extract from the selected sources. They collaboratively agreed on the type of data to extract from the selected sources.
- Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
Yes. The reviewers provided the list of excluded studies and gave a justification for the same. They retrieved 2,775 abstracts and eliminated duplicates and those that had the term nap abbreviated. They excluded others based on the study designs. After eliminating all ineligible studies, they were left with 13 studies to review.
- Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
Partially, yes. The reviewers included the following information about all the reviewed studies: the setting of the study, the sample, the outcome measures, the intervention, and the research design. They included the information for each of the 13 studies reviewed.
- Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
Partially, yes. The reviewers did not explicitly deal with the risk of bias in the selected studies. However, they covered various aspects of the selected studies, such as the blinding of participants and assessors during the outcome assessment. They also included random allocation to intervention and control groups.
- Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
No, the reviewers did not include any information to indicate that they reported the sources of funding for studies included in the review. Besides, there is no indication that the information was searched but not reported.
- Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
No. the reviewers did not include any information to suggest a conflict of interest, such as regarding the source of funding for their study. It does not include any mechanism for managing such conflicts of interest.