conduct critical appraisal of the 4 selected articles
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and consider the importance of critically appraising research evidence.
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3. THESE ARTICLES HAVE BEEN INPUT INTO THE TEMPLATE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE
- Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources. THAT TOOL IS BELOW
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:
- An evaluation table
- A levels of evidence table
- An outcomes synthesis table
Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
|
Evaluation Table
Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
|
Full citation of selected article |
Article #1 |
Article #2 |
Article #3 |
Article #4 |
|
Cotogni, P., Barbero, C., & Rinaldi, M. (2015). Deep sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery: Evidences and controversies. World journal of critical care medicine, 4(4), 265–273. doi:10.5492/wjccm. v4.i4.265. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles /PMC4631871/ |
Kubota, H., Miyata, H., Motomura, N., Ono, M., Takamoto, S., Harii, K., … Kyo, S. (2013). Deep sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery. Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 8, 132. doi:10.1186/1749-8090-8-132. Retrieved from pmc/articles/PMC3663691/ |
Simek, M., Chudoba, A., Hajek, R., Tobbia, P., Molitor, M., & Nemec, P. (2018). From open packing to negative wound pressure therapy: A critical overview of deep sternal wound infection treatment strategies after cardiac surgery. Biomedical Papers Of The Medical Faculty Of The University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia. doi:10.5507/bp.2018.053.https://org.exp.waldenulibrary.org/doi:10.5507/bp.2018.053 |
Simor, A. E. (2011). Staphylococcal decolonisation: An effective strategy for prevention of infection? The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 11(12), 952-62. Retrieved from https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url= https://search-proquest-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ docview/906522531?accountid=14872 |
|
|
Conceptual Framework Describe the theoretical basis for the study |
||||
|
Design/Method Describe the design and how the study was carried out |
|
|
|
|
|
Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients, attrition rate, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Major Variables Studied List and define dependent and independent variables |
||||
|
Measurement Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions |
||||
|
Data Analysis Statistical or qualitative findings |
||||
|
Findings and Recommendations General findings and recommendations of the research |
||||
|
Appraisal Describe the general worth of this research to practice. What are the strengths and limitations of study? What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research? What is the feasibility of use in your practice? |
||||
|
General Notes/Comments |
Levels of Evidence Table
Use this document to complete the levels of evidence table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
|
Author and year of selected article |
Article #1 |
Article #2 |
Article #3 |
Article #4 |
|
Study Design Theoretical basis for the study |
||||
|
Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients |
||||
|
Evidence Level * (I, II, or III)
|
||||
|
Outcomes |
||||
|
General Notes/Comments |
* Evidence Levels:
- Level I
Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis
- Level II
Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis
- Level III
Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis
- Level IV
Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence
- Level V
Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence
Outcomes Synthesis Table
Use this document to complete the outcomes synthesis table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
|
Author and year of selected article |
Article #1 |
Article #2 |
Article #3 |
Article #4 |
|
Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients |
||||
|
Outcomes
|
||||
|
Key Findings |
||||
|
Appraisal and Study Quality |
||||
|
General Notes/Comments |
Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with at least 3 to 5 APA citations of the research.
Looking for a similar assignment? Our writers will offer you original work free from plagiarism. We follow the assignment instructions to the letter and always deliver on time. Be assured of a quality paper that will raise your grade. Order now and Get a 15% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"
