Literature Review Outline: Outcomes of Fibrinolytic Therapy vs. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)Introduction (should be about half a page in length)
Describe your overall field of study (i.e. myocardial infarction, what it is, why it needs to be addressed quickly, briefly list options.) The introduction describes background information on your topic and the purpose of your paper.
Treatment Option 1 (should be about one page in length)
Lets start the ball rolling by using your single chosen article, the one that you wrote your contribution to the group annotated bibliography. Pull out one of the important areas of this article and its relation to the conclusion of the study. You need to address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the studys worth to the scientific community.
Now that you youve gotten the ball rolling go back and look at the other annotations from your group members. Hopefully you spot another article or two that closely relates to this important article and discuss how it relates, either supporting the point from the first article or disputing it. In your own words address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the studys worth to the scientific community.
Here is the single chosen article: Schwartz, R., Weiss, T., Leibowitz, D., Rot, D., Pollak, A., Lottam, C., & Alcalai, R. (2013). Thrombolysis followed by coronary angiography versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in non-anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Invasive Cardiology, 25(12), 632-636. Retrieved from http://www.invasivecardiology.com/articles/thrombolysis-followed-coronary-angiography-versus-primary-percutaneous-coronary-interventionTreatment Option 2 (should be between half and one page in length)
Using the articles from your annotated bibliography, pull out one of the important areas of this article and is relation to the conclusion of the study. You need to address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the studys worth to the scientific community.
Now go back and look at the other annotations. Hopefully you spot another article or two that closely relates to this important article and discuss how it relates, either supporting the point from the first article or disputing it. In your own words address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the studys worth to the scientific community.
Here is the single chosen article: Schwartz, R., Weiss, T., Leibowitz, D., Rot, D., Pollak, A., Lottam, C., & Alcalai, R. (2013). Thrombolysis followed by coronary angiography versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in non-anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Invasive Cardiology, 25(12), 632-636. Retrieved from http://www.invasivecardiology.com/articles/thrombolysis-followed-coronary-angiography-versus-primary-percutaneous-coronary-interventionConclusion (1-2 paragraphs): This will briefly describe overall strengths and weaknesses of the field. What piece of information is missing? How might that missing information be further investigated?
Below are some important requirements for this assignment:
The literature review needs to reviewat least 6 articles.These can include but are not limited to the articles that your group reviewed in the Annotated Bibliography group project. You do not have to include all of those original journal articles from the annotated bibliography, but some of them might be relevant.
Use proper APA format
Cite sources within your document. One citation cannot be used to cover an entire paragraph. Any information that is not your own words, thoughts, or ideas must be cited.
Requirements state at least 2 pages long (not including cover and reference pages) but may be longer. Content is more important than length.
We do not allow the use of quoted material in this class. You should try paraphrasing instead of quoting and then cite the reference. We are assessing how well YOU write, not how well the author of your journal article writes.References
Armstrong, P.W., Gershlick, A. H., Goldstein, P., Wilcox, R., Danays, T., Lambert, Y., . . . Van
De Werf, F. (2013). Fibrinolysis or primary pci in st-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of Medicine, 368 (15), 1379-1387. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301092
Arso, I. A., Hartopo, A. B., Setianto B.Y., Taufiq, N. (2014). In-hospital major cardiovascular events between STEMI receiving thrombolysis therapy and primary PCI. Acta Med Indones, 46(2): 124-130. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25053685
Garcia,E., Elizaga,J., Perez-Castellano,N., Serrano,J.A., Soriano,J., Abeytua,M., . . . Delcan,J.L. (1999). Primary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial infarction.Journal of the American College of Cardiology,33(3), 605-611. doi: 10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00644-5Wallace, E. L., Kotter, J. R., Charnigo, R., Kuvlieva, L. B., Smyth, S. S., Ziada, K. M., & Campbell, C. L. (2013). Fibrinolytic therapy versus primary percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Kentucky: Time to Establish Systems of Care? Southern Medical Journal, 106(7), 391398. doi: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31829ba880.
Westerhout, C.M., Bonnefoy, E., Welsh, R.C., Steg, P.G., Boutitie, F., & Armstrong, P.W. (2011).The influence of time from symptom onset and reperfusion strategy on 1-year survival in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of an early fibrinolytic strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention from CAPTIM and WEST.American Heart Journal.161(2): 283-290.doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.033