Is the literature review comprehensive?
The literature review in this article is not comprehensive. To begin with, the thesis of the research is not clear. In addition, there are no research questions that need to be answered in the literature review. The authors have not formulated questions that require research. The authors have synthesized results into a summary of the known and unknown things. However, they have not identified areas that draw controversy. All these factors contribute to making the literature review incomprehensible.
Is the literature review concise?
The literature review is not concise. It lacks flow and contradicts its audience. The work is not organized to allow readers to expand their knowledge regarding the topic. The authors have not provided succinct statements that capture the essence of the study. The literature review is very long and thus not precise to the point.
Does the review flow logically from the purposes of the study?
The review does not flow logically from the purpose of the study. Although the authors attempted to relate the research to previous studies, they lacked a flow in their work. It is a narrow, shallow, somehow confusing, and long-winded review. In this case, it is constructed in an arbitrary manner making the content unorganized.
Are all sources relevant to the study topic?
All sources are relevant to the topic of study. Most of them revolve around the discharge instructions, physicians, nurses’ communication, and quality care. In addition, the sources cover information delivery among other elements (Engel et al., 2012). All these are similar to the topic of study.
Are sources critically appraised?
The sources are critically appraised. The researchers have carefully and systematically examined the resources before they were applied to the study. This can be illustrated by the fact that they are relevant to the topic of the study and have been correctly cited in the paper.
Are both classic and current sources included?
The resources used in the study are both recent and old. Most of the resources used by the authors are typical and are widely used in health-related studies. Recent resources are also included. For instance, citations from recent years such as 2012, which is the year in which the article was published have been used (Engel et al., 2012).
Are paraphrases or direct quotes used most often?
In most of their work, the authors have used paraphrasing. The resources used in the research study are many, and confirm that the researchers paraphrased most of their arguments.
Are both supporting and opposing theories and research presented?
Notably, both the supporting and opposing theories and research have not been presented. Thus, only the supporting theory and research are presented by the authors. For instance, the researchers made some adjustments in their research to make it conform to their study topic (Engel et al., 2012).
Can a determination be made if sources are primary or secondary?
Yes, a determination can be made if the sources are primary or secondary. The sources were secondary. The authors paraphrased most of their work using secondary sources. Print journals, web articles, and books are categorized as secondary sources. Since the authors used them, it can be determined that the resources used are secondary.
Are all sources that are cited in the article on the reference list?
All the sources cited in the article are in the reference list. This can be confirmed by the number of sources used in both the body of the paper and the reference list, which is 49 (Engel et al., 2012).
Do the references appear to be free of citation errors?
The references have very few citation errors if any. Notably, the article uses the Vancouver referencing style. The journal articles have been referenced properly in accordance with the style requirements. However, there is a small error in referencing the website sources.
Reference
Engel, K. G., Buckley, B. A., Forth, V. E., McCarthy, D. M., Ellison, E. P., Schmidt, M. J., & Adams, J. G. (2012). Patient understanding of emergency department discharge instructions: where are knowledge deficits greatest? Academic Emergency Medicine, 19(9), E1035-E1044.