Q: Which methodology of review should I use to answer my question around the Valsalva manouevre?

Detailed Question -

I am confused (not sure) about which methodology of review I should use to answer my question and if a critical review of a systematic review is the best way forward. My question is: Should modified Valsalva manoeuvre replace vagal manoeuvres as the standard first-line treatment for stable regular narrow complex tachycardia? Please could you help?

1 Answer to this question
Answer:

We assume you have already undertaken a literature search to see what is out there and what sort of papers are being published for addressing similar queries. If so, deciding on the type of review would depend on two factors:

  • How meaningful you would like the review to be: A systematic (or descriptive) review is of course more thorough a narrative (literature) review.
  • What sort of information is already available in the field: If there is enough information and data on the two manoeuvres that can be analyzed and compared, a systematic review would be best – assuming this has not already been done.

Hope that helps. For more on systematic reviews, you may find these resources helpful:

And if still undecided, you may wish to consult the specialists at our experimental design service here: Editage Experimental Design

All the best for deciding and moving forward!

Comment