Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in Parkinson’s disease

With evidence-based practice now central to all our work, the need for reviews to examine evidence published in existing literature is increasing. This substantial assignment requires you to complete this in the form of a mapping review.; considering evidence collected using any appropriate study designs to increase your appreciation of the subject through critical appraisal of work done by others. The aim of this work is to identify a gap, puzzle or dilemma within the existing evidence base;
This assessment should contain several key elements (as outlined below). Your work will be assessed against each of these criteria, ensuring (as far as possible), comparability between degree programmes using this module.

1. The review should “…map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, and can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before” (Mays et al., 2001). Essentially, you should show – in your introduction – a broad understanding of the history which led to scientific interest in your chosen topic.
2. Show evidence of objective, repeatable, and evidence-based data collection methods (such as those used in “evidence based review protocols” and “systematic reviews” used in healthcare). Your methods must be clear enough for another researcher to repeat the work described. Specifically, we will be looking to check that you have:
a. Defined and refined research search terms (“What are we going to look for?”)
b. Identified databases and search engines used (“Where are we going to look?”)
c. Justified selection of the papers included in your review (ideally you should be aiming to review approx. 20-25 papers as a minimum).
3. A tabulated summary of key information identified in all the papers you have reviewed should be included as an appendix to your review paper.
4. Reviews must end with a conclusion which identifies a gap, puzzle or dilemma in the reviewed research area, something which those of you continuing onto FSLS701 (PG Research Project) will aim to address in your own further research.

The maximum ward count is 3000 (excluding references and appendix table). State word count on cover page. Harvard style referencing is required

Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in Parkinson’s disease
the instruction are given by the document which is attached called assignment 1 has the information which need to be followed plus there is more information inside the document which contains the marking grid also a pdf example is attached which show the layout of the coursework which need to be done for this cw
a tabluated summary needs to be done plus the example pdf which i attached has a great figure1 for the way they collected details of the search, which need to be done for this cw

follow the example called ” is targeting SLAMF7….” the structure should be close to this example

pubmed must be used plus information on DJ-1 need to be added in this cw, the layout coursework should be close to the example pdf i attached , the writer need to follow the critical review marking grid which is inside the document called assignment 1

3000 wards for the essay its self and 850 for the figures and tabluated summary

Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in Parkinson’s disease

With evidence-based practice now central to all our work, the need for reviews to examine evidence published in existing literature is increasing. This substantial assignment requires you to complete this in the form of a mapping review.; considering evidence collected using any appropriate study designs to increase your appreciation of the subject through critical appraisal of work done by others. The aim of this work is to identify a gap, puzzle or dilemma within the existing evidence base;
This assessment should contain several key elements (as outlined below). Your work will be assessed against each of these criteria, ensuring (as far as possible), comparability between degree programmes using this module.

1. The review should “…map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, and can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before” (Mays et al., 2001). Essentially, you should show – in your introduction – a broad understanding of the history which led to scientific interest in your chosen topic.
2. Show evidence of objective, repeatable, and evidence-based data collection methods (such as those used in “evidence based review protocols” and “systematic reviews” used in healthcare). Your methods must be clear enough for another researcher to repeat the work described. Specifically, we will be looking to check that you have:
a. Defined and refined research search terms (“What are we going to look for?”)
b. Identified databases and search engines used (“Where are we going to look?”)
c. Justified selection of the papers included in your review (ideally you should be aiming to review approx. 20-25 papers as a minimum).
3. A tabulated summary of key information identified in all the papers you have reviewed should be included as an appendix to your review paper.
4. Reviews must end with a conclusion which identifies a gap, puzzle or dilemma in the reviewed research area, something which those of you continuing onto FSLS701 (PG Research Project) will aim to address in your own further research.

The maximum ward count is 3000 (excluding references and appendix table). State word count on cover page. Harvard style referencing is required

Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in Parkinson’s disease
the instruction are given by the document which is attached called assignment 1 has the information which need to be followed plus there is more information inside the document which contains the marking grid also a pdf example is attached which show the layout of the coursework which need to be done for this cw
a tabluated summary needs to be done plus the example pdf which i attached has a great figure1 for the way they collected details of the search, which need to be done for this cw

follow the example called ” is targeting SLAMF7….” the structure should be close to this example

pubmed must be used plus information on DJ-1 need to be added in this cw, the layout coursework should be close to the example pdf i attached , the writer need to follow the critical review marking grid which is inside the document called assignment 1

3000 wards for the essay its self and 850 for the figures and tabluated summary

Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in Parkinson’s disease

With evidence-based practice now central to all our work, the need for reviews to examine evidence published in existing literature is increasing. This substantial assignment requires you to complete this in the form of a mapping review.; considering evidence collected using any appropriate study designs to increase your appreciation of the subject through critical appraisal of work done by others. The aim of this work is to identify a gap, puzzle or dilemma within the existing evidence base;
This assessment should contain several key elements (as outlined below). Your work will be assessed against each of these criteria, ensuring (as far as possible), comparability between degree programmes using this module.

1. The review should “…map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available, and can be undertaken as stand-alone projects in their own right, especially where an area is complex or has not been reviewed comprehensively before” (Mays et al., 2001). Essentially, you should show – in your introduction – a broad understanding of the history which led to scientific interest in your chosen topic.
2. Show evidence of objective, repeatable, and evidence-based data collection methods (such as those used in “evidence based review protocols” and “systematic reviews” used in healthcare). Your methods must be clear enough for another researcher to repeat the work described. Specifically, we will be looking to check that you have:
a. Defined and refined research search terms (“What are we going to look for?”)
b. Identified databases and search engines used (“Where are we going to look?”)
c. Justified selection of the papers included in your review (ideally you should be aiming to review approx. 20-25 papers as a minimum).
3. A tabulated summary of key information identified in all the papers you have reviewed should be included as an appendix to your review paper.
4. Reviews must end with a conclusion which identifies a gap, puzzle or dilemma in the reviewed research area, something which those of you continuing onto FSLS701 (PG Research Project) will aim to address in your own further research.

The maximum ward count is 3000 (excluding references and appendix table). State word count on cover page. Harvard style referencing is required