The problem for the article is clearly stated in the introduction. The article sets out to determine whether razors or clippers cause a higher incidence of infection in postoperative clients. The article is based on two variables, razors and clippers, as to which one causes more infections. The hypothesis isn’t clearly stated, but it is assumed from the purpose statement in the introduction. The hypothesis of the article is that clippers are better to use than razors in preoperative hair removal to reduce the incidence of infection postoperatively.
The trial was conducted by Tracy Taylor, a Clinical Nurse Specialist for Skin Oncology,and Dr. Judith Tanner, Lead for Nursing Research at Derby Hospitals; two very qualified investigators for the topic. The article did to systematic reviews that examined preoperative shaving; “Preoperative Hair Removal: a systematic review” by I. Kjonniksen and “Preoperative Hair Removal to Reduce Surgical Site Infection” by J. Tanner. The review of these two studies are well used throughout the article and well organized. In preparation for the study, other literature related to the topic was reviewed.
The two variables identified in the article are razors and clippers. The dependant variables are preference of preoperative hair removal with razors or clippers and postoperative infections, is clearly identified in the article; the independent variables are identified as razors and clippers. In the article, the client’s preexisting conditions and the type and location of the procedure are not defined as variables, thus are undefined. Though there is not a clear and stated definition of the independent and dependant variables, they can be assumed from the reading of the article.
The type of design is not clearly identified, nor does the it fit categorically into a particular design. The article associates more with a quasi-experimental design in that it is not randomized, clients that where required to have hair removed prior to surgery where used; controls where put in place, staff where trained in both hair removal methods, the same type of clipper and razor was used, and the way hair had to be clipped or shaved; manipulation of independent variables, the patients where shaved with either clippers or razors. Some threats to validity where controlled throughout the study, other threats aren’t mentioned.
Validity was controlled by using the same type of clippers or razors, and training the staff how to shave that patient in the same manner. Testing and maturation where not a threat to validity in this study as patients where unable to control the physiological processes of their body. Mortality was controlled by allowing follow-up interviews to be done by telephone, this would be more convenient to the patient. The patients had the procedure, and two weeks later completed a post test; the article does not explain how validity to history was controlled in those two weeks.
The instruments used to collect data are clearly identified as a pre-test and two post-tests, one completed immediately after surgery and the other two weeks after surgery. The instruments used provided sufficient information to express the effectiveness of clippers over razors. The tests consisted of questions directly related to the issue and where given directly to the participants to answer. No limitations to the tests are presented in the article. The article describes how the measurements where studied in that they where entered into a database and analyzed using simple statistics.
The article does not state any data that supports reliability and validity measures used in measurements. The sampling is clearly stated in the article. The researchers chose patients at a day surgery unit that where having a range of surgical procedures that needed to have hair removed prior to the procedure. The article also states that the sample size was based on previous similar studies; and 157 patients where chosen. The participants were than randomized into two groups by using numbered envelopes which also achieved concealment. With 78 patients in each of the groups the sample size chosen was adequate for the study.
The analyzed values from the tests are summarized on tables and explained in detail. The statistic chosen, p values, were effective based on the instrumentation used. The level of significance is reported in results, the findings where statistically significant with p values of 0. 41 and 0. 11 respectively. The results of the article are based on the findings of the trial. The researchers discuss both the weaknesses and strengths of the study and the results. The researchers hypothesis was proved in that clippers caused less trauma to the skin which resulted in less infection.
One of the weakness the researchers found that the participants were impartial to razors or clippers and that the participants themselves may not have been reliable as the follow-up was a self-reporting process. A factor that came about through the research that was not intended to be studied originally was the aesthetic appearance of the shaving. The conclusion of the paper is justified in the review of literature and the trial that was conducted for the article. The title is very clear as to what it is about and what is being tried.
The abstract direct and concise in relation to the article, it located directly below the title. The investigators hypothesis and research is based on an actual trial conducted, there is not a reason to suspect the investigator of dishonesty. The investigators avoided sexist and bias references in the article, referring to the patients as “patients” and staff as “staff. ” The report was interesting in that the norm of shaving clients preoperatively with razors has been discouraged now, and that nursing has been changed to prefer clippers for preoperative shaving.
The researchers sought out to ensure their trial was ethical. It was taken to an ethics committee, Local Research Ethics Committee, and permission for the study was given. In addition each patient in the study gave their approval and concent to take part in the trial. No identify characteristics of the participants are included in the study. Also, the investigators used numbered envelops and table during the trial to ensure the participants anonymity.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed. ). Washington, DC: Author. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Fifth Edition). Washington , D. C. : American Psychological Association. (Original work published 2001) Taylor, T. , & Tanner, J. (2005). Risk management: razors versus clippers: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Perioperative Nursing, 15(12), 518. Retrieved Monday, November 20, 2006 from the CINAHL Plus with Full Text database.