Nursing - Research article critique ***Need in 4 hours

Evidence level and quality rating:

Article title:

Number:

Author(s):

Publication date:

Journal:

Setting:

Sample (composition and size):

Does this evidence address my EBP question?

Yes

No- Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence

· Clinical Practice Guidelines LEVEL IV

Systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel

· Consensus or Position Statement LEVEL IV

Systematically developed recommendations, based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion, that guide members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern

· Are the types of evidence included identified?

· Yes

· No

· Were appropriate stakeholders involved in the development of recommendations?

· Yes

· No

· Are groups to which recommendations apply and do not apply clearly stated?

· Yes

· No

· Have potential biases been eliminated?

· Yes

· No

· Does each recommendation have an identified level of evidence stated?

· Yes

· No

· Are recommendations clear?

· Yes

· No

Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

· Literature review LEVEL V

Summary of selected published literature including scientific and nonscientific such as reports of organizational experience and opinions of experts

· Integrative review LEVEL V

Summary of research evidence and theoretical literature; analyzes, compares themes, notes gaps in the selected literature

· Is subject matter to be reviewed clearly stated?

· Yes

· No

· Is literature relevant and up-to-date (most sources are within the past five years or classic)?

· Yes

· No

· Of the literature reviewed, is there a meaningful analysis of the conclusions across the articles included in the review?

· Yes

· No

· Are gaps in the literature identified?

· Yes

· No

· Are recommendations made for future practice or study?

· Yes

· No

Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

· Expert opinion LEVEL V

Opinion of one or more individuals based on clinical expertise

· Has the individual published or presented on the topic?

· Yes

· No

· Is the author’s opinion based on scientific evidence?

· Yes

· No

· Is the author’s opinion clearly stated?

· Yes

· No

· Are potential biases acknowledged?

· Yes

· No

Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

Organizational Experience

· Quality improvement LEVEL V

Cyclical method to examine workflows, processes, or systems with a specific organization

· Financial evaluation LEVEL V

Economic evaluation that applies analytic techniques to identify, measure, and compare the cost and outcomes of two or more alternative programs or interventions

· Program evaluation LEVEL V

Systematic assessment of the processes and/or outcomes of a program; can involve both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods

Setting:

Sample Size/Composition:

· Was the aim of the project clearly stated?

· Yes

· No

· Was the method fully described?

· Yes

· No

· Were process or outcome measures identified?

· Yes

· No

· Were results fully described?

· Yes

· No

· Was interpretation clear and appropriate?

· Yes

· No

· Are components of cost/benefit or cost effectiveness analysis described?

· Yes

· No

· N/A

Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

· Case report LEVEL V

In-depth look at a person or group or another social unit

· Is the purpose of the case report clearly stated?

· Yes

· No

· Is the case report clearly presented?

· Yes

· No

· Are the findings of the case report supported by relevant theory or research?

· Yes

· No

· Are the recommendations clearly stated and linked to the findings?

· Yes

· No

Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Complete the corresponding quality rating.

Community standard, clinician experience, or consumer preference LEVEL V

· Community standard: Current practice for comparable settings in the community

· Clinician experience: Knowledge gained through practice experience

· Consumer preference: Knowledge gained through life experience

Information Source(s)

Number of Sources

· Source of information has credible experience

· Yes

· No

· N/A

· Opinions are clearly stated

· Yes

· No

· N/A

· Evidence obtained is consistent

· Yes

· No

· N/A

Findings That Help You Answer the EBP Question

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

Quality Rating for Clinical Practice Guidelines, Consensus, or Position Statements (Level IV)

A High quality

Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; documentation of a systematic literature search strategy; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies and definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years.

B Good quality

Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; reasonably thorough and appropriate systematic literature search strategy; reasonably consistent results, sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies with fairly definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years.

C Low quality or major flaw

Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency; undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy; no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies; insufficient evidence with inconsistent results; conclusions cannot be drawn; not revised within the past five years.

Quality Rating for Organizational Experience (Level V)

A High quality

Clear aims and objectives; consistent results across multiple settings; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations with thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B Good quality

Clear aims and objectives; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; consistent results in a single setting; reasonably consistent recommendations with some reference to scientific evidence.

C Low quality or major flaws

Unclear or missing aims and objectives; inconsistent results; poorly defined quality; improvement/financial analysis method; recommendations cannot be made.

Quality Rating for Case Report, Integrative Review, Literature Review, Expert Opinion, Community Standard, Clinician Experience, Consumer Preference (Level V)

A High quality

Expertise is clearly evident, draws definitive conclusions, and provides scientific rationale; thought leader in the field.

B Good quality

Expertise appears to be credible, draws fairly definitive conclusions, and provides logical argument for opinions.

C Low quality or major flaws

Expertise is not discernable or is dubious; conclusions cannot be drawn.