ANALISA JURNAL

1. Is the journal considered reputable? Is the journal appropriate to find an

article relating to this particular subject?
(Yes, The journal is considered reputable)

2. Do the researchers appear to have the appropriate qualifications for

undertaking the study? Was the research performed in an appropriate
medical facility?
(Yes, the Author was from Pharmacy Department and qualified to took the
study)

3. What was the source of financial support for the study?

(No)

4. Do the authors give sufficient background information for the study? Did
they demonstrate that the study was important and ethical?
(Yes)
5. Are the purpose and the objectives clearly stated and free from bias?
(Yes)

6. Was the study approved by an investigational review board?

(No)

7. Does the investigator state the null hypothesis? Is the alternative

hypothesis stated?
(No)

8. Is the sample size large enough? Is the sample representative of the

population?
(Yes)

9. Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated, and are they
appropriate?
(No)

10. Was the study randomized correctly? Even if the study is adequately
randomized, are the groups (treatment and control) equivalent?
(No)

11. What is the study design? Is it appropriate?

( Prospective study design)

12. Was the study adequately controlled? Were the controls adequate and
appropriate?
(Yes, it belonged to time, concentration, temperature, and composition of
the drug)

13. Was the study adequately blinded?

(No)
14. Were appropriate doses and regimens used for the disease state under
study?
(Yes)

15. Was the length of the study adequate to observe outcomes?

(Yes, it took unti 48 hours)

16. If the study is a crossover study, was the washout period adequate?
(-)

17. Were operational definitions given?

(No)

18. Were appropriate statistical tests chosen to assess the data? Were the
levels of and error chosen before the data were gathered?
(No)

19. Was patient compliance monitored?

(No)

20. If multiple observers were collecting data, did the authors describe how?
(No, there is no multiple observers)

21. Did the authors justify the instrumentation used in the study?
(Yes)
22. Were measurements or assessments of effects made at the appropriate
times and frequency?
(Yes, at 0, 4, 7, 24, and 48 hours)

23. Are the data presented in an appropriate, understandable format?

(Yes)

24. Are standard deviations or confidence intervals shown along with mean
values?
(No)

25. Are there any problems with type I () or type II () errors?

(No)

26. Are there any potential problems with internal validity or external
validity? Internal validity types include history, maturation,
instrumentation, selection, morbidity, and mortality.
(No)

27. Are adverse reactions reported in sufficient detail?

(No)

28. Are the conclusions supported by the data? Is some factor other than the
study treatment responsible for the outcomes?
(Yes, No)

29. Are the results both statistically and clinically significant?

(No)

30. Do the authors discuss study limitations in their conclusions?

(No)
31. Were appropriate references used? Are references timely and reputable?
Have any of the studies been disproven or updated? Do references cited
represent a complete background?
(Yes / about the time, we only could get this reference for this far / No /
Yes)

32. Would this article change clinical practice or a recommendation that you
would give to a patient or health-care professional?
(Yes, especially for sepsis treatment, we recommend for the interval drug
using)