Literature Review Outline: Outcomes of Fibrinolytic Therapy vs. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Introduction (should be about half a page in length) Describe your overall field of study (i.e. myocardial infarction, what it is, why it needs to be addressed quickly, briefly list options.) The introduction describes background information on your topic and the purpose of your paper. Treatment Option 1 (should be about one page in length) Let’s start the ball rolling by using your single chosen article, the one that you wrote your contribution to the group annotated bibliography. Pull out one of the important areas of this article and its relation to the conclusion of the study. You need to address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to the scientific community. Now that you you’ve gotten the ball rolling go back and look at the other annotations from your group members. Hopefully you spot another article or two that closely relates to this important article and discuss how it relates, either supporting the point from the first article or disputing it. In your own words address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to the scientific community. Here is the single chosen article: Schwartz, R., Weiss, T., Leibowitz, D., Rot, D., Pollak, A., Lottam, C., & Alcalai, R. (2013). Thrombolysis followed by coronary angiography versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in non-anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Invasive Cardiology, 25(12), 632-636. Retrieved from http://www.invasivecardiology.com/articles/thrombolysis-followed-coronary-angiography-versus-primary-percutaneous-coronary-intervention Treatment Option 2 (should be between half and one page in length) Using the articles from your annotated bibliography, pull out one of the important areas of this article and is relation to the conclusion of the study. You need to address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to the scientific community. Now go back and look at the other annotations. Hopefully you spot another article or two that closely relates to this important article and discuss how it relates, either supporting the point from the first article or disputing it. In your own words address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to the scientific community. Here is the single chosen article: Schwartz, R., Weiss, T., Leibowitz, D., Rot, D., Pollak, A., Lottam, C., & Alcalai, R. (2013). Thrombolysis followed by coronary angiography versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in non-anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Invasive Cardiology, 25(12), 632-636. Retrieved from http://www.invasivecardiology.com/articles/thrombolysis-followed-coronary ...

1. Literature Review Outline: Outcomes of Fibrinolytic Therapy
vs. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
Introduction (should be about half a page in length)
Describe your overall field of study (i.e. myocardial infarction,
what it is, why it needs to be addressed quickly, briefly list
options.) The introduction describes background information on
your topic and the purpose of your paper.
Treatment Option 1 (should be about one page in length)
Let’s start the ball rolling by using your single chosen article,
the one that you wrote your contribution to the group annotated
bibliography. Pull out one of the important areas of this article
and its relation to the conclusion of the study. You need to
address who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly
how. Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to
the scientific community.
Now that you you’ve gotten the ball rolling go back and look at
the other annotations from your group members. Hopefully you
spot another article or two that closely relates to this important
article and discuss how it relates, either supporting the point
from the first article or disputing it. In your own words address
who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how.
Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to the
scientific community.
Here is the single chosen article: Schwartz, R., Weiss, T.,
Leibowitz, D., Rot, D., Pollak, A., Lottam, C., & Alcalai, R.
(2013). Thrombolysis followed by coronary angiography versus
primary percutaneous coronary intervention in non-anterior ST-
elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Invasive
Cardiology, 25(12), 632-636. Retrieved from
http://www.invasivecardiology.com/articles/thrombolysis-
followed-coronary-angiography-versus-primary-percutaneous-
coronary-intervention

2. Treatment Option 2 (should be between half and one page in
length)
Using the articles from your annotated bibliography, pull out
one of the important areas of this article and is relation to the
conclusion of the study. You need to address who did what,
where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how. Your summary
should also summarize the study’s worth to the scientific
community.
Now go back and look at the other annotations. Hopefully you
spot another article or two that closely relates to this important
article and discuss how it relates, either supporting the point
from the first article or disputing it. In your own words address
who did what, where, when, why (purpose), and briefly how.
Your summary should also summarize the study’s worth to the
scientific community.
Here is the single chosen article: Schwartz, R., Weiss, T.,
Leibowitz, D., Rot, D., Pollak, A., Lottam, C., & Alcalai, R.
(2013). Thrombolysis followed by coronary angiography versus
primary percutaneous coronary intervention in non-anterior ST-
elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of Invasive
Cardiology, 25(12), 632-636. Retrieved from
http://www.invasivecardiology.com/articles/thrombolysis-
followed-coronary-angiography-versus-primary-percutaneous-
coronary-intervention
Conclusion (1-2 paragraphs): This will briefly describe overall
strengths and weaknesses of the field. What piece of
information is missing? How might that missing information be
further investigated?
Below are some important requirements for this assignment:
1. The literature review needs to review at least 6
articles. These can include but are not limited to the articles
that your group reviewed in the Annotated Bibliography group
project. You do not have to include all of those original journal

3. articles from the annotated bibliography, but some of them
might be relevant.
2. Use proper APA format
3. Cite sources within your document. One citation cannot be
used to cover an entire paragraph. Any information that is not
your own words, thoughts, or ideas must be cited.
4. Requirements state at least 2 pages long (not including cover
and reference pages) but may be longer. Content is more
important than length.
5. We do not allow the use of quoted material in this class. You
should try paraphrasing instead of quoting and then cite the
reference. We are assessing how well YOU write, not how well
the author of your journal article writes.
References
Armstrong, P.W., Gershlick, A. H., Goldstein, P., Wilcox, R.,
Danays, T., Lambert, Y., . . . Van
De Werf, F. (2013). Fibrinolysis or primary pci in st-segment
elevation myocardial infarction. The New England Journal of
Medicine, 368 (15), 1379-1387. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301092
Arso, I. A., Hartopo, A. B., Setianto B.Y., Taufiq, N. (2014).
In-hospital major cardiovascular events between STEMI
receiving thrombolysis therapy and primary PCI. Acta Med
Indones, 46(2): 124-130. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25053685
Garcia, E., Elizaga, J., Perez-Castellano, N., Serrano, J. A.,
Soriano, J., Abeytua, M., . . . Delcan, J. L. (1999). Primary
angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial

4. infarction. Journal of the American College of
Cardiology, 33(3), 605-611. doi: 10.1016/S0735-
1097(98)00644-5
Wallace, E. L., Kotter, J. R., Charnigo, R., Kuvlieva, L. B.,
Smyth, S. S., Ziada, K. M., & Campbell, C. L. (2013).
Fibrinolytic therapy versus primary percutaneous coronary
interventions for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in
Kentucky: Time to Establish Systems of Care? Southern
Medical Journal, 106(7), 391–398. doi:
10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31829ba880.
Westerhout, C.M., Bonnefoy, E., Welsh, R.C., Steg, P.G.,
Boutitie, F., & Armstrong, P.W. (2011). The influence of time
from symptom onset and reperfusion strategy on 1-year survival
in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of an
early fibrinolytic strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary
intervention from CAPTIM and WEST. American Heart
Journal. 161(2): 283-290. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.10.033