Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

60

(60

.00%)

Points

Range:

0

(0.00%)

-

62

(62.00%)

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical

issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question,

or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and v

aguely identifies less than four research databases

used to conduct a search for the peer

-

reviewed articles selected or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer

-

reviewed articles selected, includi

ng an inaccurate and vague explanation of the

strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing.

The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research

presented or is missing.

The presentation provides a

vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources

related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the

presentation or is missing.

Feedback:

APA

-

citations

-

see et al. rule and apply in citations with more than 2 aut

hors. See

common ref list examples in writing center and how to format journal articles per APA.

Be sure to utilize at least two filtered databases when conducting search for systematic

reviews. Databases such as Joanna Briggs and Cochrane. Articles select

ed and not

representative of Systematic Review, they are primary research articles. Therefore, no

points can be earned for said articles. See page 171 in textbook. A systematic review is

secondary research

--

uses research that was conducted previously (pr

imary research).

Systematic Reviews are extremely detailed and look at throughout many databases to

collect all the primary research studies done on the topic. See page 171 in textbook. A

systematic review is secondary research

--

uses research that was co

nducted

previously (primary research). Systematic Reviews are extremely detailed and look at

throughout many databases to collect all the primary research studies done on the

topic. Level of Evidence in Peer

-

Reviewed Articles

-

be sure to share for each of

the

peer

-

reviewed articles the level of evidence based on a particular source

-

explain

-

did

this represent the Hierarchy of Evidence (see textbook page 18 or other course

resources), or John Hopkins Level of Evidence shared? Remember, Level 1 are

consid

ered the highest level and representative of Systematic Reviews

---

in primary

studies, such as the articles you located, those are lower on the hierarchy of evidence

pyramid. List all reference together on the last Reference page

-

include all. In

present

ation include a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using

systematic reviews for clinical research. From the articles you located, what strengths

did you note from the systematic review

---

did it shed some light into discovery of the

60 (60.00%)

Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 62 (62.00%)

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes the chosen clinical

issue of interest or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question,

or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than four research databases

used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected or is missing.

The presentation inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-

reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the

strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing.

The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research

presented or is missing.

The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources

related to the articles selected and fails to integrate any resources to support the

presentation or is missing.

Feedback:

APA - citations - see et al. rule and apply in citations with more than 2 authors. See

common ref list examples in writing center and how to format journal articles per APA.

Be sure to utilize at least two filtered databases when conducting search for systematic

reviews. Databases such as Joanna Briggs and Cochrane. Articles selected and not

representative of Systematic Review, they are primary research articles. Therefore, no

points can be earned for said articles. See page 171 in textbook. A systematic review is

secondary research -- uses research that was conducted previously (primary research).

Systematic Reviews are extremely detailed and look at throughout many databases to

collect all the primary research studies done on the topic. See page 171 in textbook. A

systematic review is secondary research -- uses research that was conducted

previously (primary research). Systematic Reviews are extremely detailed and look at

throughout many databases to collect all the primary research studies done on the

topic. Level of Evidence in Peer-Reviewed Articles - be sure to share for each of the

peer-reviewed articles the level of evidence based on a particular source - explain - did

this represent the Hierarchy of Evidence (see textbook page 18 or other course

resources), or John Hopkins Level of Evidence shared? Remember, Level 1 are

considered the highest level and representative of Systematic Reviews --- in primary

studies, such as the articles you located, those are lower on the hierarchy of evidence

pyramid. List all reference together on the last Reference page - include all. In

presentation include a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using

systematic reviews for clinical research. From the articles you located, what strengths

did you note from the systematic review --- did it shed some light into discovery of the