P value and Bayesian analysis in randomized-controlled trials in child health research published over 10 years, 2007 to 2017: a methodological review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is an unresolved debate about the reliability of the interpretation of P value. Some investigators have suggested that an alternative Bayesian method is preferred in conducting health research. As randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are important in generating research evidence, we decided to investigate the extent, if any, the inferential statistical framework in published RCTs in child health research have changed over 10 years. We aim to examine the change in P value and Bayesian analysis in RCTs in child health research papers published from 2007 to 2017. METHODS: We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) to identify relevant citations. We will leverage a pre-existing sample of child health RCTs published in 2007 (n=300) used in our previous study of reporting quality of pediatric RCTs. Using the same strategy and study selection methods, we will identify a comparable random sample of child health RCTs published in 2017 (n=300). Eligible studies will include RCTs in health research among individuals aged 21 years and below. One reviewer will select studies for inclusion and extract the data and another reviewer will verify these. Disagreements will be resolved by a discussion between reviewers or by involving another reviewer. We will perform a descriptive analysis of 2007 and 2017 samples and analyze the results using both the frequentist and Bayesian methods. We will present specific characteristics of the clinical trials from 2007 and 2017 in tabular and graphical forms. We will report the difference in the proportion of P value and Bayesian analysis between 2007 and 2017 to assess the 10-year change. Clustering around P values of significance, if observed, will be reported. DISCUSSION: This review will present the difference in the proportion of trials that reported on P value and Bayesian analysis between 2007 and 2017 to assess the 10-year change. The implications for future clinical research will be discussed and this research work will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This review has the potential to help inform the need for a change in the methodological approach from the null hypothesis significance test to Bayesian methods. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/aj2df.

Is it time for the 4th P in nurse practitioner education? Physical assessment, pharmacology, pathophysiology, and procedures: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nurse practitioners (NPs) perform diagnostic and clinical procedure skills in the acute, specialty, urgent, and primary care settings. Nurse practitioners surveyed on readiness for practice report a lack of confidence and education preparation for performing selected advanced diagnostic and skills. As NPs gain independent, full practice scope, it is imperative advanced diagnostic and procedure skills used in practice are taught in nurse practitioner curriculum. The purpose of this review is to document a systematic review of the literature, answering the following question: Among primary care NPs, does current program curriculum align with current procedures and skills in theclinical setting? METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, and Embase were searched between inception and 2018 using the search terms "advanced practice nursing, clinical competence, diagnostic techniques or procedures, and primary health care." Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines, nine articles were included in the synthesis. CONCLUSION: There is scant research regarding NP educational preparation of skills and procedures. Study findings indicate that programs are not teaching all the procedures deemed important. Education should promote improved congruence between the skills and procedures taught in program curricula and those used in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: It is critical to complete an education practice survey measuring skill and procedure preparation and competency at graduation. Survey results will determine whether skill and procedure guidelines are indicated for NP education. A recommendation may include minimal skills and procedure for all nurse practitioner curricula.