While searching for the primary studies which are RCT as inclusion criteria for SR, there are many studies based on the theoretical basis or explain a certain mechanism. I need these later studies to write the discussion. Shall I count them or not? (since they not fulfilling inclusion criteria).
Dear Heba,
Yes you can use them in writing the discussion. You are discussing the results of included studies (RCT) and therefore you use whatever may explain these results.
I would suggest you to please do include non RCTs and even case series in discussion if they are well reported in terms of data and methodology.
Discussion may include citations from all levels of evidence. The similarities, difference and why such a difference might have come up is the aim of the discussion. Also, the merits and demerits of citations chosen as well as your study is important. RCTs and non-RCTs both have a place in the discussion but RCTs invariably offer better support to your discussions. Some areas have very less high quality studies and they may require the use of less levels of evidence and it is acceptable.
If a non-RCT has been carried out in a meticulous way, the results offered by it are more reliable than a poorly reported RCT or poorly carried out RCT. So choice should be based on the levels of evidence as well as the quality of the study in entirety.
Regards,
Dr. Akilesh. R
India
drakileshr [at] akilmaxfac [dot] com
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing