Understanding the Research Methodology: Should We Trust the Researchers' Conclusions?

Gastroenterology Nursing

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 269-274

  Schmelzer, Marilee ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENEMA;

ARTICLE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NURSING; NURSING RESEARCH; RANDOMIZATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ENEMA; HUMANS; NURSING RESEARCH; RANDOM ALLOCATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0034334311     PISSN: 1042895X     EISSN: 15389766     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001610-200011000-00005     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. Burns, N., & Grove, S. (1997). The practice of nursing research: Conduct, critique, and utilization (3rd ed). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
2. Cohan, C., Kadakia., S., & Kadakia, A. (1992). Serum electrolyte, mineral, and blood pH changes after phosphate enema, water enema and electrolyte lavage solution enema for flexible sigmoidoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 38(5), 575-578.
3. Lipsey, M. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.
4. Niv, Y. (1990). Enema preparation for proctosigmoidoscopy does not cause mucosal changes (Letter to the editor). Southern Medical Journal, 79(11), 1459-1460.
5. Orchard, J., & Lawson, R. (1986). Severe colitis induced by soap enemas. Southern Medical Journal, 79(11), 1459-1460.
6. Rousseau, P. (1988). No soapsuds enemas! Postgraduate Medicine, 83(4), 352-353.
7. Schmelzer, M., Case, P., Chappell, S., & Wright, K. (2000). Colonic cleansing, fluid absorption, and discomfort following tap water and soapsuds enemas. Applied Nursing Research, 13(2), 83-91.