Demonstrate a rigorous, transparent, systematic, and replicable approach to literature retrieval, data extraction, quality appraisal and analysis/synthesis of research evidence.
One of your criteria is ‘An adult over 18 years with suspected sepsis requiring diagnostic confirmation or treatment.’, yet the following included articles should have been excluded based on this criteria e.g. John et al (2018) this is an article on trauma and not sepsis, Brown et al (2016) this is an article on trauma not sepsis, Tarrant et al (2016) this is an in-hospital study on the Sepsis Six care bundle not prehospital or lactate testing etc. etc. In addition, within your results section under ‘Identification of Sepsis’ you refer to and discuss the findings of Wallgren et al. (2014) and Bayer et al (2015) but neither of these articles form part of your 8 selected articles, the only article discussed in this section that appeared in your 8 selected articles is Groen-Ewoudt et al (2014). You also spend time discussing screening tools which has no link to you original research topic of lactate testing.Trauma Prehospital Lactate’ is not relevant to you review at all because it does not meet your principle inclusion criteria ‘An adult over 18 years with suspected sepsis requiring diagnostic confirmation or treatment.’. The learning outcomes for this assessment are as follows: Demonstrate the ability to independently identify, plan and execute a focused, in-depth and time bounded research-based project using the knowledge and skills acquired in the taught element of the module.Demonstrate a rigorous, transparent, systematic, and replicable approach to literature retrieval, data extraction, quality appraisal and analysis/synthesis of research evidence. Formulate appropriate, balanced, and defendable conclusions through the analysis and synthesis of research evidence and make recommendations to inform future practice.Communicate complex information, findings, arguments, and proposals coherently, and in a conventional scholarly format, to a professional audience. Unfortunately, your review is not transparent and replicable, and your conclusions are not balanced and defendable because they do not address your original question, you have written around the papers that you found but many of these should have been excluded, and you have not understood what was required.