CAP 4 feedback

Name
Professor
Subject
Date
Critically Appraised Paper Peer Rubric (CAP)
100 points
Points
Title page with the focused clinical question Provided with all information
10 points Provided however not complete
5 points Not provided
0 points The running head is well written, and the clinical question is provided.
9 points
Clinical relevance statement Clear and concise clinical bottom line from both articles.
20 points Clinical bottom line reported however not clearly stated or lacking information
15 points Clinical bottom line not stated or not clear
10 points The article has a clear clinical relevance statement which investigates the impact of mirror therapy in conjunction with task-oriented training on the upper extremities.
The paper has a clear and concise clinical bottom line.
19 points
Study summary Comprehensive information provided in the article
30 points Most information provided on search—missing one-three items for comprehensive information
25 points Minimal information/detail on specific search
15 points The article explores the effect of mirror therapy and task-oriented training among stroke patients with paretic upper extremity. The paper does not provide any information regarding how occupational therapists can apply the knowledge acquired.
25 points
Study appraisal Identification/statement of study strengths as well as threats to validities
25 points Partial statement of study strengths and limitations for both or one article in…