Loyola University of Chicago Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence Based Practice Worksheet Non-research appraisal: Guideline or Systematic Review Select a guide

Loyola University of Chicago Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence Based Practice Worksheet Non-research appraisal: Guideline or Systematic Review

Select a guideline or systematic review article from the Week 4 list.
Write a two 2 page critique of the article in a Word Doc integrating your course readings. Be sure to include a citation for your article using APA format.
Complete the Johns Hopkins Non-research evidence review document.
Submit both through TurnItIn by Sunday 11:59pm MT of week 4

Format & Presentation Requirements

APA Format According to the current edition
Word Doc per assignment requirements.
Word Doc Format: Cover page, no abstract, introduction (no heading per APA), body of the paper/review, reference list, appendix with Johns Hopkins appraisal doc. For review sections refer to your readings and the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool.
Article title, author, journal, publication date
Evidence level and quality
Analysis of the study methodology (specific to study type, e.g., qualitative versus quantitative versus non-research)
Reference list should include the chosen article and other resources used to construct the review, such as course textbook, Johns Hopkins Evidence Based Practice: Model and Guidelines, and How to Read a Paper by Greenhalgh (2014).
Students may select any non-research article to use for the Week 4 Assignment: Critique of a Non-Research Article Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F
Non-Research Evidence Appraisal
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

Yes

No
▪ Are recommendations clear?
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.
1
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F
Non-Research Evidence Appraisal
❑ 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
• 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

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
• Are potential biases acknowledged?
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.
2
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F
Non-Research Evidence Appraisal
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
Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question
Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

3
Case report LEVEL V
In-depth look at a person or group or another social unit
❑ N/A
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F
Non-Research Evidence Appraisal
▪ 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
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Evidence obtained is consistent
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)
4
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F
Non-Research Evidence Appraisal
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.
5

Purchase answer to see full
attachment