NPSC5000 Searching For And Analysing Scientific Arguments: Critical Reflection Homework Answer

pages Pages: 4word Words: 890

Question :

Assignment 1: NPSC5000 Searching for and analysing scientific arguments


Please note that this assessment is a simulation of a part of the research process. It is designed to help you develop foundational research skills that are required to complete your MSc course successfully.


  1. To document your process to search for peer-reviewed literature using bibliometrics such as citation indexing and impact factor to justify your selection.
  2. To assess your ability to evaluate arguments and integrate evidence from other peer-reviewed literature to forward your argument.
  3. To demonstrate your skills in formal academic writing, including overall structure, logical progression, flow, paragraph structures, and use of an appropriate citation style, before you complete subsequent written assignments in this unit.

In this assignment, you will:

  1. Identify a research area and propose a potential research topic, 
  2. Find literature relevant to your topic and justify the credibility and relevance of the literature, 
  3. Analyse the argument(s) presented in the literature to identify the claim(s) made 
  4. Evaluate the merit of the claim(s) made in the literature based on the evidence that is presented.


There are three parts to this assignment. You will need to complete all three parts to achieve a pass. Failure to complete one part will result in a fail even if you score over 50% for the other parts. Please note the submission date for each part.

A1 Part 1 Topic Identification (20 marks )

  1. Identify a topic relevant to your chosen discipline. MSc students who will start projects this year (2021) may already have a topic or at least have an idea of a topic.  MSc and PG Dip students who will start their projects next year (2022) may use a relevant topic to their discipline that interests them. If you have no idea for a topic, you may choose one from the list provided at the end of this document.
  1. Once you have a topic, you need to write a 300-400 words background for the topic. Your background should introduce the topic by defining relevant terms. It should demonstrate how and/or why the topic is important, interesting, relevant and worthy of investigation. Make sure you reference your claims. Provide an end-of-text reference list. Use APA 7th ed
  2. Note: The project topic will probably be refined as a consequence of the literature search, or may emerge as you browse information relevant to your area of interest.  You can choose any topic (or part of a topic) that you like as long as it is of a scientific nature and relevant to your discipline.  

 A1 Part 2 Literature search (50 marks due 19/03/21)

  1. Perform a literature search for the topic that you have chosen. You should select two peer-reviewed journal papers sourced from journals that have an impact factor verified by third-party indexing search engines, and this should form part of your decision to choose both the paper and journal.  These two peer-reviewed journal papers should be:
  • highly cited work on your chosen topic, and 
  • one paper published between 2017 to 2020 that cites the highly cited work identified  above. 

You may need to refine your search before finding two papers that satisfy both conditions and are useful to your research topic.  Please be mindful that a highly cited paper will not necessarily be current or relevant; a bad paper may receive many citations too!  As a very rough guide, a well-cited paper may have over 100 citations and will have recent papers that cite it, but this is discipline-dependent with good papers in engineering or mathematics having fewer citations than, say, chemistry or Earth science.

  1. Provide details of the papers using the correct referencing style. 
  2. You are required to explain your search and selection process. How did you search to find the papers and determine their appropriateness (i.e., search engines used, citation number, and impact factor and/or SJR of the journal)? 
  3. Provide details of a CRAAP test on both papers. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. 
  4.  You may use a table format to present this information.

Note: Your answer for Part 2 should not exceed 2 pages ((page margins 254 mm × 254 mm), single spaced, Times New Roman 12pt font)   

A1 Part 3 Analysis of arguments (70 marks)

1. Critically evaluate the strength of the arguments from each of the journal articles and integrate evidence from these sources with any additional cited literature you think is necessary to support your evaluation.

2. You should present your evaluation in the form of an argument by analysing the argument(s). Address the following questions explicitly: 

3. How did you evaluate the strength of the claims presented by the authors?  What indicators of the quality of an argument such as soundness, validity, clarity, reasoning, consistency and logic were present? Evaluate the evidence used to support the arguments.

4. Provide a reference list at the end of your document for Part 3. The reference list is not included in the page count.

5. Your analysis should be structured in connected paragraphs.

Note: Your answer for Part 3 should not exceed 2 pages ((page margins 254 mm × 254 mm), single   spaced, Times New Roman 12pt font) 

 Structure of submissions

Student number and name should be given on a cover page or at the top of the first page of the assignment.

Use APA. Make sure the referencing conforms to specifications.

Show More

Answer :

NPSC5000 – Assignment 1 (Part 3)


The blood management system is considered an approach to handle blood supplies in the healthcare sector. In this regard, the literature review was presented to support the effective notion of this topic. This paper will aim towards conducting a critical reflection on both the journal articles that were used in Part 2 – A literature review. The articles were Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy by Althoff et al. (2019) and Patient Blood Management by Goodnough, Tim, and Bruno (2012). While the first aimed towards providing an assessment on the potential of areas associated with evaluating the effectiveness of BMS, the aim of the second article was about echoing the areas of risk assessments in blood management systems. 

Critical Reflection on Article 1 

In Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy, the objective of the paper included determination of whether the blood management system that is multidisciplinary is effective to reduce the complication rate during the clinical practices or not (Althoff et al., 2019). For this purpose, the authors have used a systematic method of meta-analysis where the eligible studies included 3 BMS pillars with one measure per pillar. However, the conduction by Tricco et al. (2012) echoed that the effectiveness of the complication rate in clinical practices cannot be derived from the current legacy of thresholds (Tricco et al., 2012). Thus, it becomes essential to consider a different approach for different patients. The three pillars that were reflected by the authors in Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy can be used as a generalized way to conduct the BMS programs. In this regard, the authors have included consideration of some essential factors such as the red blood cells unit, mortality rates, and complication ratios (Althoff et al., 2019). 

A similar integration was presented in Patient Blood Management: A Global View by Shander et al (2016). The article found that blood management systems might be directed to treat intense iron deficiencies, which could be effective in diminishing the patient's red platelets (RBCs) or hemoglobin (Hb) (Shander et al., 2016). It also states that an intense weakness accelerates the body's versatile reactions, like expanded heart yield and a decreased foundational vascular opposition with vasodilation of the vessels to the significant organs. This results in an expansion of tissue extraction, all to fall flat at various phases of movement. This was used as the second pillar in the Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy (Althoff et al., 2019). Thus, it could be echoed loud that the validity of the Althoff et al. article could be integrated amongst the general practising sessions as well jut that the complication ratios have to be kept in mind before proceeding for the final assessments. 

Further, in the Multimodal Patient Blood Management Program Based on a Three-pillar Strategy, it was echoed by the authors that the implementation of BMS systems has been found to decrease the risks of transfusion rates by 39% where the risk ratios were 0.61%. In this regard, the authors reflected a part of using Aspirin during various assessments such as artery bypass surgery and clotting. The clarity could be driven with the help of the study conducted by Cholette et al. They have echoed in their paper that the 2015 meta-investigation of 2399 individuals going through coronary vein sidestep a medical procedure exhibited expanded dying, red platelet (RBC) bonding, and careful re-exploration in patients who didn't have their anti-inflammatory medicine suspended preoperatively (Cholette et al., 2018). In the absence of pediatric information, most focuses choose Aspirin before elective medical procedure depends on the current grown-up assessments. 

Althoff et al have also stated that various blood management programs have advanced gradually and are best when various mediations are consolidated. The authors have coordinated BMS into 3 primary columns. These included columns such as comprehensive anemia management, reduction of unnecessary blood loss, and optimization of specified tolerances (Althoff et al., 2019). Further, 17 studies were conducted that included data of around 2, 37,779 patients who have undergone surgery and required blood assessments as well (Althoff et al., 2019). Thus, the empirical evidence shows the reasoning of Althoff’s findings along with their legitimacy of using three pillars for this purpose. 

To conclude the critical reflection, it was found that this journal article aimed towards determining whether a multidisciplinary blood management program for patients undergoing surgery is effective for reducing perioperative complication rates and improving clinical outcome or not. In this regard, all the information that was gathered and presented in the form of empirical shreds of evidence was justified and thus, the logical explanation was present throughout the article. 

Critical Reflection on Article 2

In-Patient Blood Management, the authors have developed an objective of using the blood and its components more appropriately by minimizing their side effects. For this purpose, the authors have echoed four major goals. These included the areas associated with known blood risks, prevention and management of national blood inventory, unknown blood risks, and the constraints of escalating costs (Goodnough et al., 2012). 

The soundness of the article was not biased and instead focused on evaluating the alternatives available in the blood management sector. Goodnough et al. echoed the concept as “promoting the availability of transfusion alternatives” and thus, the soundness is clarified at this part (Goodnough et al., 2012). Various other assessments such as the peer review by Meybohm et al. (2017) have also focused on simplifying the recommendations for Blood Management System's validity across the world but the tone of stating the empirical shreds of evidence was not healthy (Meybohm et al., 2017). In this regard, Goodnough and the team in Patient Blood Management echo loud that the appropriate use of blood and blood components, to minimize their use, should be the priority of healthcare units, globally (Goodnough et al., 2012). 

Since the assessments are integrated very recently, the validity becomes easier to track. A similar integration was applied by Shander and team in Patient Blood Management as Standard of Care where the concept of blood management system was echoed as a spectrum of care for both out and inpatient settings in the healthcare sector (Shander et al., 2016). Further, the qualitative review conducted by Shaylor et al. in 2017 has also integrated a similar strategy to manage obstetrics in Blood Management Systems. 

The authors in Patient Blood Management have also conducted a compatibility test where around 9000 patients and their data were assessed (Goodnough et al., 2012). After the test, it has been found that the risk of cross-blood management was reduced from 1:133 to 1:328. Thus, this accelerates the concept of blood management systems as a mode of promoting the alternatives for transfusion availabilities. 

For tracking the PBMS more effectively, Goodnough et al. in Patient Blood Management have echoed the transformation of blood management systems into a mode of promoting the alternatives for transfusion availabilities (Goodnough et al., 2012). In this regard, the study conducted by authors reflects that; since the supply of blood is limited, scrutiny and importance of reducing blood utilization for the healthcare institutions become essential to consider in the first place. A similar reflection was presented by Goodnough in 2013 when the transfusion of Blood Management showed up as an age of medical outputs (Goodnough, 2013). Lastly, considering the consistency and reasoning of this journal article, all the shreds of evidence were backed up from government sites such as Practice Guidelines for blood component therapy (Goodnough et al., 2012). In this regard, the core foundation for presenting the alternatives becomes essential to be prioritized for assessing the blood management systems more effectively.