research
itsdue on the 5
a year ago
1
RatingsystemforLevelofEvidence112.docx
ResearchArticleComponentIdentificationAssignment-4201.docx
- InfectionControlJournal2.pdf
RatingsystemforLevelofEvidence112.docx
RATING SYSTEM FOR THE LEVEL/HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE
LEVEL I: Evidence from an integrated literature review, systematic review or meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trails (RCTs), or evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on systematic reviews of RCTs.
· Review of research evidence related to a specific clinical question.
· Critically analyzes and synthesizes findings from multiple random control trials.
· Aim is to interpret and translate findings.
LEVEL II: Evidence obtained from at least one well-designated RCT. (experimental)
· Study subjects are randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group.
· May be:
· Blind: neither subject nor investigator knows which treatment the subject is receiving.
· Double-blind: neither subject nor investigator knows which treatment the subject is receiving.
· Non-blind: both subject and investigator know which treatment subject is receiving; used when it is felt that the knowledge of treatment is unimportant.
LEVEL III: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. (quasi-experimental)
· Always includes manipulation of an independent variable
· Lacks either random assignment or control group
· Findings must be considered in light of threats to validity (particularly selection)
LEVEL IV: Evidence from well-designed case-control and cohort studies.
· No manipulation of the independent variable.
LEVEL V: Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies, correlational studies.
LEVEL VI: Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study.
· Explorative in nature, such as interviews, observations, or focus groups.
· Starting point for studies of questions for which little research currently exists.
· Sample sizes are usually small and study results are used to design stronger studies that are more objective and quantifiable.
· Describing differences in variables between or among groups.
· Describing relationships among variables. No attempt to understand causal relationship.
LEVEL VII: Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees.
QUALITY DEFINITIONS
(Quality is based on Critical Appraisal)
GOOD: A study meets all research design-specific criteria well
FAIR: A study does not meet (or it is not clear that it meets) at least one design-specific criterion but has no known “fatal flaws”
POOR: A study that has at least one design specific “fatal flaw: or an accumulation of lesser flaws.
References
Dearholt, S.L.; & Dang, D. (2012). John Hopkins nursing-evidence based practice: model and guidelines (2nd ed.). John Hopkins University, School of Nursing: Sigma Theta Tau
Fineout-Overholt, E and Melnyk, B.M. (2005). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: a guide to best practice. Philadephia:Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
ResearchArticleComponentIdentificationAssignment-4201.docx
Research Study Component Identification Assignment
Name: ____________________________________________________________________________
*Instructions:
1. Utilize the journal article provided, entitled:
Chlorhexidine impregnated surgical scrubs and whole body wash for reducing colonization of health care personnel by Salazar-Vargas et al
2. In the article, identify the following components (# 1-24, listed below) of the research process. Highlight, underline or bracket, on the article, each component listed with the corresponding number from this worksheet. If any component is missing, make a note next to the item on the worksheet.
3. On the worksheet, add the specific page number/s (ie239, 426) where each component is found in the article. Components may be in more than one place, so search for them. If any components of the research process are missing, please note this on the sheet under the component, i.e. missing or N/A.
4. Complete question #25.
Components:
1. Abstract ---0.5pt
2. Problem statement (what the problem was and why the study was needed) ---2pt
3. Purpose Statement/Purpose or aim of the study -1pt
4. Theoretical or conceptual framework (if available) -0.5pt
5. Review of literature (throughout the article)- 0.5pt
6. Study design i.e. Descriptive, random control trial, quasi-experimental, case study, ethnography. What
specific research study design was used in the article? –2pt
7. Level of Evidence of the research study design: (no page# needed). See Level of Evidence sheet. -2pt
8. Sample population-- 0.5pt
9. Sample size --0.5pt
10. Inclusion Criteria of the participants (who is included in the study) -0.5pt
11. Exclusion Criteria of participants (who is excluded in the study; this may be vague or assumed)—0.5pt
12. Setting; Where did the study take place? 0.5pt
13. Legal-ethical issues (IRB approval; Specific guidelines/policies followed): 0.5pt
14. Independent and Dependent variables: (4 points)
Independent variable/s: (Be specific; no page # needed):
Dependent variable/s: (Be specific no page # needed):
15. Data collection procedure/s (step by step or process of how data was collected) –2pt
16. Measurement tools: 0.5pt
17. Validity and reliability (this can be explained in many ways, i.e. validity of a tool or revision of a tool to
increase reliability; training done.) –1
18. Data analysis (methods/statistics used to analyze data) –1
19. Results-findings; Share enough information/data to clearly state the results; be specific: 2pt
20. Discussion –conclusions 1pt
21. Limitations of the study i.e. small sample size, high dropout rate, one setting (if available) --0.5pt
22. Implications for nursing practice from the findings (if available) i.e. how will this data be used? What
education can student nurses/nurses provide patients/families/staff --1pt
23. Suggestions for further study (if available) –1
24. References --0.5
25. Did the article have enough information to meet the criteria of a valid research article? Yes or No;
Why or Why not? Please explain; MUST include strengths or weaknesses of the research article (4 pts)
- CJA 484 Week 4 Individual Assignment Criminal Law Foundations Evaluation (UOP Course)
- 2 Essays but with no plagiarism
- international finance
- Discussion—Competitiveness and Inventory Management
- case study, Union Baristas: Human resource
- Unit 6 Strategic Management of Health Care
- due in 20 hours watch the video and produce a compare and contrast essay t
- business
- NTC 362 ENTIRE COURSE
- KIM WOODS