Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool

Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool

Evidence Level and Quality:_______________________

Article Title:

 

 

Number:

 

Author(s):

 

 

PublicationDate:

Journal:

 

 

Setting:

 

 

Sample

(Composition&size):

 

Does this evidence address my EBP question?

 

 

£Yes

 

£No

Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

A. Is this a report of a single research study?  
If No, go to B
.

 

1.     Was there manipulation of an independent variable?

Was there a control group?

Were study participants randomly assigned to the interventionand control groups?

 

 

If Yes to all three, this is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) or Experimental Study   

 

 

 

If Yes to #1and #2 and No to #3, OR Yes to #1 and No to #2and#3, this is Quasi Experimental
(some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of

an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, may have a control group)

 

 

If No to #1, #2, and #3, this is Non-Experimental
(no manipulation of independent variable, can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational, often uses secondary data)
or Qualitative
(exploratory in naturesuch as interviews or focus groups, a starting point for studies for which little research currently exists, has small sample sizes,  may use results  to design empirical studies)

 

 

 

 

 

NEXT, complete THE bOTTOM SECTION ON THE Following PAGE
, “
STUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£ LEVEL  I

 

 

 

 

 

 

£LEVEL II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£ LEVEL III

 

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

 

£No

 

£No

£No

 

£No

 

 

B.  Is this a summary of multiple research studies?
If No, go to Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Form.

 

1.     Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method (
Systematic Review)? 
If No, use Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool; if Yes:

 

a.     Does it combine and analyze results from the studies to generate a new statistic (effect size)? (
Systematic review with meta-analysis
)

b.    Does it analyze and synthesize concepts from qualitative studies? (
Systematic review with meta-synthesis
)

 

If Yes to either a or b, go to #2B below.

 

2.     For Systematic Reviews and Systematic Reviews with meta-analysis or meta-synthesis:

a.     Are all studies included RCTs?

 

b.    Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental or

quasi-experimental only?

 

c.     Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and

non-experimental or non-experimental only?

 

d.    Are any or all of the included studies qualitative?

 

 

complete THE
NEXT SECTION,
“
STUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£ LEVEL  I

 

 

£ LEVEL II

 

 

£ LEVEL IIl

 

£ LEVEL IIl

 

 

 

£Yes

 

 

 

£Yes

 

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

£No

 

 

 

£No

 

 

£No

 

£No

 

 

 

 

Study findings that help you answer the EBP question
:

 

 

 

 

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOW COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGE, “QUALITY APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH STUDIES”, AND ASSIGN A QUALITY SCORE TO YOUR ARTICLE

Quality Appraisal of Research Studies

·         Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge?

·         Was the purpose of the study clearly presented?

·         Was the literature review current (most sources within last 5 years or classic)?

·         Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?

·         If there is a control group:

o    Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?

o    If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?

o    Were all groups equally treated except for the interventiongroup(s)?

·         Are data collection methods described clearly?

·         Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s α [
alpha
]
>
0.70)?

·         Was instrument validity discussed?

·         If surveys/questionnaires were used, was the response rate
>
25%?

·         Were the results presented clearly?

·         If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?

·         Were study limitations identified and addressed?

·         Were conclusions based on results?

 

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

 

 

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

 

£Yes

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

 

£No

£No

£No

£No

 

 

£No

£No

£No

£No

 

£No

£No

 

£No

 

£No

 

£No

 

£No

 

£No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£NA

£NA

£NA

 

 

£NA

£NA

 

£NA

 

 

 

£NA

 

Quality Appraisal of Systematic Review with or without Meta-Analysis or Meta-Synthesis

·         Was the purpose of the systematic review clearly stated?

·         Were reports comprehensive, with reproducible search strategy?

o  Key search terms stated

o  Multiple databases searchedand identified

o  Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated

·         Was there a flow diagram showing the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?

·         Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths and limitations)?

·         Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?

·         Were conclusions based on results?

o    Results were interpreted

o   Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question

·         Did the systematic review include both a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed?

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

 

£Yes

£Yes

£Yes

 

£Yes

£No

£No

£No

£No

£No

 

£No

 

£No

 

£No

 

£No

£No

£No

 

£No

Quality Rating Based on quality appraisal

A
High quality:
  consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensiveliterature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence

B
Good quality:
reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence

C 
Low quality or major flaws
:
little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn