google-site-verification=-CxNBF1tY1OFq-FxGj905sLa3tg462Giw6WbFn0gZDA

Topic selected
comparing Average Length of Stay between Acute Care and Not Acute Care Hospitals”. He wants us to review 5 articles on literature reviewed. 
There are 2 parts to this assignment. Part 1 is a qualitative analysis using Review Manager 5 tools to analyze the risk of bias for  5 articles from the literature on the topic your group selected. Part 2 is a quantitative data analysis design, the report on that design, the actual analysis of the data, (again) based on the topic your group selected, and a report of the findings.
The following are the main steps to perform this team project. When writing your report for this assignment, please use the section headers and the numbering for the various steps outlined below (starting from step #2.1):
Step #2: Performing the Qualitative analysis
2.1. This section of the assignment is aimed at giving students an opportunity to select and analyze at least 5 articles using the ‘Review Manager 5’ tools. The tools will enable you to analyze the risk of bias for the 5 selected articles following these steps:
Setting Up Review Manager 5
Make sure that RevMan is currently in the ‘Non-Cochrane’ mode (not “Standard” mode). You can set that as  Tools > Preferences > General > enable ‘Non-Cochrane mode’
When RevMan 5 opens, click on the blank page icon in the top left-hand corner. This will bring up the new review wizard and you can then write your review and save it to your computer. You should not see any interface with the Cochrane login or the Cochrane server.
Information sources and search strategy
Report on which published literature sources you searched, which keywords you used, and whether you limited your search to particular publication years. Create your keywords from your research topic. So, your objective should be to select from the published literature, at least 5 studies based on the keywords you created. They should be studies that were published to answer the same research question you are answering with your group research topic.
For each of the studies you decide to include in your review, complete “Table 1 – Literature Review Analysis – by Your Name” in your assignment report. As we discussed earlier two separate members of your group should do this independently (that means you don’t share information while you are doing any of this). At the end when you have put together your final group report, of course, everyone in the group will see these two sets of separate tables (Table 1 and Table 2.)
Using Review Manager 5
Note: There is a Tutorial for RevMan that comes in PDF format that accompanies the software when you install it on your computer desktop. It is called “rm5tutorial.pdf”
The data you used to complete Table 1 is then analyzed using non-Cochrane mode in the RevMan 5.4 software. The methodological quality of each study is assessed using The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias. Follow the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (Higgins, 2011), to assess whether study authors took adequate steps to reduce the risk of bias across five domains:
– Selection bias,
– Performance bias,
– Detection bias
– Attrition bias, 
– Reporting bias.
The judgment of studies for potential bias should be reported in “Table 2 – Literature Review, Table of Biases – by Your Name” using only one of the following letters: Y, N, or U, where  ‘Y=low risk’, ‘N=high risk, or ‘U=unclear risk’, for each respective source of bias.
So, I expect to see in your group report two sets of the following 2 tables (4 tables) for the Qualitative Analysis:
Table 1: Literature Review Analysis – by 1st Team member (specify name)
Table 2. Literature Review, Table of Biases – by 1st Team member (specify name)
Table 1: Literature Review Analysis – by 2nd Team member (specify name)
Table 2. Literature Review, Table of Biases – by 2nd Team member (specify name)
Report your method and procedure for performing the qualitative analysis in this section (2.1) of your report.
Reference
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
2.2. Report your findings in a Literature Review Analysis table and using Bias-Tables and Bias-Plots.
Table 1: Literature Review Analysis – by Your Name
Authors, Year of Publication
Intervention/
Policy evaluated
Study design/
Time Period
Data/
Study Population
Relevant Findings/
Recommendations
Author1, YYYY
Author2, YYYY
Author3, YYYY
Author4, YYYY
Author5, YYYY
ETC.
Table 2. Literature Review, Table of Biases – by Your Name
Selection Bias
Performance Bias
Detection Bias
Attrition Bias
Reporting Bias
Authors, Year of Publication
Systematic differences between baseline characteristics of the groups that are compared.
Systematic differences between groups in the care that is provided, or in exposure to factors other than the interventions of interest.
Systematic differences between groups in how outcomes are determined.
Systematic differences between groups in withdrawals from a study.
Systematic differences between reported and unreported findings.
Author1, XXXX 
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Author2, XXXX
Author3, XXXX
Author4, XXXX
Author5, XXXX
ETC.
Note:
Y: Low risk
N: High risk
U: Unclear
Figure 1 – Bias Plot – You may create a plot of your bias findings. Your plot should be to illustrate your major findings from your bias analysis in Table 2. For example a funnel plot or just a column or bar chart.
Comment on your findings in Table 2, and Figure 1.