NURS6900 : Critique of Literature Review Assessment 1

Assignment Overview

For this assessment, you are required to critique a published systematic review using the JBI Checklist for Systematic Reviews. The task involves a three-step process for each of the 12 checklist questions. First, you must upload the article into a GenAI tool and ask it to answer each JBI checklist question. Second, you are required to copy and paste the GenAI-generated response for the relevant question. Third, after reviewing GenAI’s answer, you must identify errors, missing details, or inaccuracies in its critique. Finally, you will provide the correct response in your own words, using evidence directly from the systematic review and supporting academic literature. You will complete this full sequence for all 12 JBI Checklist questions, ensuring that each section includes a GenAI response, an explanation of GenAI’s error, and your corrected response.

1. Review Question and Objectives (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated? What is the purpose, objective, and/or question of the systematic review?

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Describe inaccuracies, missing detail, misunderstandings, or incorrect interpretations in GenAI's critique of the review question and objectives.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the systematic review’s research question meets methodological standards, using additional literature to justify your claims.

2. Inclusion Criteria (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: What are the inclusion criteria for this review? Are the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question? Explain why/why not.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Identify and explain errors, omissions, or inaccurate interpretations from GenAI’s assessment of inclusion criteria.

3. Correction:
   Discuss whether the inclusion criteria meet the methodological expectations of a systematic review, supported by literature.

3. Search Strategy (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Is a clear search strategy provided? Is the search strategy appropriate? Explain why/why not.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Describe any mistakes or gaps in GenAI’s critique of the search strategy.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the search strategy aligns with best-practice systematic review methods, supported by evidence.

4. Sources and Resources for Article Search (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: What sources and resources were used to search for articles? Explain if the sources and resources are adequate.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Identify errors or missing information in GenAI’s critique of the databases and resources used.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the sources selected by the authors were suitable for the study design, supported by methodological literature.

5. Criteria for Appraising Studies (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: What was the criteria for appraising studies? Was this criteria appropriate? Provide a rationale for your answer.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Highlight inaccuracies or gaps in GenAI’s appraisal of the authors’ quality-assessment criteria.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the appraisal tools and criteria used were methodologically appropriate.

6. Independent Critical Appraisal (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently? Explain why it is important to have two or more reviewers.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Describe discrepancies in GenAI’s assessment of reviewer independence.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the approach used by the authors aligns with methodological standards and justify with literature.

7. Data Extraction Methods (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: How was the data extracted? What methods were used to minimise errors in data extraction? Are these methods appropriate? Explain.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Identify inaccuracies or gaps in GenAI’s critique of data extraction methods.

3. Correction:
   Discuss whether the data extraction techniques match expectations for systematic reviews, supported by literature.

8. Methods for Combining Studies (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate? Provide a rationale for your answer.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Highlight mistakes in GenAI’s evaluation of synthesis methods.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the synthesis method was suitable for the type of systematic review, supported by methodological sources.

9. Assessment of Publication Bias (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? Provide a rationale for your answer.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Identify errors or incomplete observations in GenAI’s critique of publication bias assessment.

3. Correction:
   Explain potential publication bias risks and their implications for the review, supported by further literature.

10. Support for Recommendations (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data? Explain how.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Identify inconsistencies or gaps in GenAI’s critique of recommendations.

3. Correction:
   Explain whether the review’s recommendations are evidence-based, with supporting literature.

11. Directives for New Research (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: Were specific directives for new research identified? Are these appropriate? Provide a rationale for your answer.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Describe any errors in GenAI’s interpretation of future research suggestions.

3. Correction:
   Evaluate whether the review’s research recommendations are appropriate for its design, supported by literature.

12. Application of Findings to Clinical Practice (Approx. 100 words)

JBI Checklist Question: From your appraisal of this review, would you apply the findings to your clinical practice? Explain why/why not.

1. GenAI response:
   [Paste GenAI-generated response here]

2. GenAI Error:
   Identify errors or omissions in GenAI’s critique of clinical applicability.

3. Correction:
   Use evidence to justify whether you would apply the findings to practice, based on methodological quality and relevance.

Summary of Assessment Requirements

This assessment requires students to critically appraise a published systematic review using the JBI Checklist for Systematic Reviews, consisting of 12 key questions. For each checklist item, students must complete a three-step evaluation process:

1. Upload the article into a GenAI tool and generate an answer to the specific JBI question.

2. Copy and paste the GenAI-generated response into the assessment template.

3. Identify the errors, missing details, misunderstandings, or inaccuracies in the GenAI response.

4. Provide a corrected, evidence-based answer, written in their own words, supported by:

   • Evidence directly from the systematic review

   • Methodological literature (e.g., JBI guidance, systematic review best practices)

This full cycle must be completed for each of the 12 questions, covering topics such as review questions, inclusion criteria, search strategy, appraisal criteria, bias, synthesis methods, recommendations, and clinical applicability.

The assessment requires around 100 words per section, demonstrating critical thinking, understanding of systematic review methodology, and ability to analyse and refine AI-generated academic content.

How the Academic Mentor Guided the Student: Step-by-Step Approach

1. Understanding the Purpose of the Assessment

The mentor began by helping the student understand the core objective:
to evaluate the accuracy of GenAI outputs and demonstrate the ability to correct and justify academic critique using high-quality evidence.
The mentor emphasised that the student is not merely answering JBI questions but is learning to:

• Recognise weaknesses in AI-generated academic content

• Strengthen their appraisal skills

• Apply systematic review methodology correctly

2. Breaking Down the 12 Checklist Questions

The mentor guided the student through each JBI checklist item, explaining how to interpret the criteria. The approach included:

• Discussing what each question evaluates (e.g., clarity of research questions, rigour of search strategy)

• Identifying where students should look in a typical systematic review to extract evidence

• Demonstrating how to compare GenAI’s response with the actual review

This ensured the student understood what each question is truly asking before examining GenAI output.

3. Step-by-Step Method for Each Section

The mentor demonstrated the workflow required for each checklist question:

a. Generating the GenAI Response

The student was shown how to upload the article and ask targeted prompts so GenAI would answer exactly the checklist question.

b. Identifying Errors in GenAI Output

The mentor provided guidance on recognising:

• Missing methodological details

• Incorrect interpretations

• Overgeneralised statements

• Misalignment with the review evidence

• Lack of citations

• Statements that contradict systematic review standards

Examples were given such as:

• GenAI misinterpreting a narrative synthesis as a meta-analysis

• Incorrectly assuming risk-of-bias assessment tools

• Missing mention of inclusion/exclusion criteria

c. Writing the Corrected Response

The mentor guided the student to:

• Use direct evidence from the systematic review (e.g., methods, results, tables)

• Support claims using literature on systematic review methods

• Justify why GenAI responses were inaccurate

• Ensure each correction aligned with JBI methodological principles

The mentor emphasised the importance of academic tone, conciseness, and strong justification.

4. Ensuring Academic Integrity

The mentor reminded the student that all corrected responses must be:

• Written in their own words

• Supported by credible academic sources

• Independent of GenAI text to maintain originality

The student was taught how to paraphrase effectively and integrate citations appropriately.

5. Structuring the Final Submission

The mentor helped the student organise each section using the required template format:

1. GenAI Response
   (Copied exactly as produced)

2. GenAI Error Explanation
   – Clear list of mistakes, omissions, misinterpretations

3. Corrected Response
   – Evidence-based explanation supported by:

   • Review findings

   • JBI or methodological literature

This structured format ensures clarity and consistency throughout the submission.

6. Reviewing and Refining the Entire Appraisal

Once all 12 sections were drafted, the mentor guided the student through a final refinement stage:

• Checking alignment with word count expectations

• Ensuring consistency in referencing style

• Avoiding repetition

• Verifying each correction appropriately critiques the GenAI output

• Making sure every methodological claim is supported by literature

The mentor also encouraged the student to reflect on how the systematic review quality affects clinical decision-making.

Final Outcome and Learning Objectives Achieved

By following the mentor’s structured guidance, the student successfully:

Met All Assessment Requirements

• Completed the full three-step analysis for all 12 JBI checklist items

• Presented clear GenAI responses, error analyses, and corrected interpretations

• Integrated methodological literature and systematic review evidence

Developed Key Academic Skills

• Critical appraisal skills using the JBI framework

• Analytical ability to detect inaccuracies in AI-generated text

• Academic writing proficiency with strong justification and evidence

• Understanding of systematic review methodology, including:

  • Search strategies

  • Appraisal tools

  • Bias assessment

  • Data synthesis

  • Application to practice

Achieved Essential Learning Objectives

• Demonstrated ability to assess the credibility and rigour of systematic reviews

• Produced accurate corrections grounded in research methodology

• Showed capacity to make informed decisions about clinical application of findings

• Strengthened academic integrity by independently constructing corrected responses

Get Your Reference Sample – Learn Better, Score Higher

Looking for guidance on how to structure and present your academic work? You can download the sample solution provided below to understand the correct formatting, academic tone, and approach needed for your assignment. This sample is designed to help you learn, but please remember: it is strictly for reference and study purposes only. Submitting it as your own work may lead to plagiarism issues under your institution’s academic integrity policies.

If you want a solution that is 100% original, plagiarism-free, and written exclusively for your requirements, our team of expert academic writers is ready to help. We prepare customised assignments that follow your marking rubric, university guidelines, and expected academic standards ensuring you receive a fresh and high-quality submission you can confidently submit.

Why Choose a Fresh Custom-Written Assignment?

• Tailored to your exact topic and instructions

• Guaranteed plagiarism-free content with proper referencing

• Written by qualified academic professionals

• Delivered on time with unlimited revisions

• Helps you understand your subject deeply and improve grades

Make the smart choice use the sample for guidance, and get expert support when you need a unique, high-scoring solution.

Download Sample Solution      Order Fresh Assignment