Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal Of Research

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal Of Research

Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.

Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.

In this Assignment, you will use appraisal tools to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

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.
• Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources.

PREVIOUS ASSIGNMENT, TEMPLATE, AND THE 4 PEER REVIEW ARTICLES ARE ATTACHED IN THE DOCUMENTS 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.

Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Given my examination, the best practice that rises out of the exploration I checked on is Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), whereby in a clinical setting, it is considered as a fundamental component for guaranteeing that patients are given quality care just as treatment services. EBP is viewed as reasonable just as meticulous use of clinical practices that depend on current evidence. Also, medical care experts, with the help of EBP, can settle on successful decisions in connection to medicinal services operations. EBP depends on various pieces of evidence that incorporate qualitative just as quantitative research, controlled preliminaries, case reports, expert opinion, and scientific standards.

In this specific case, the clinical practices dependent on EBP help with giving better care just as treatment benefits as per patient values alongside clinical aptitude (Forrest, 2008). EBP depends on evidence gathered from qualitative research. Consequently, the quantitative analysis assumes a significant role in collecting data about current practices to be effected for the improvement of clinical skills and in gathering the patient’s values. The research examines that are ineffectively structured, and inadequate reporting is contended to influence quantitative analysis crosswise over various spheres that incorporate medicinal services, future research, decision making, and health policy. In such manner, distinguishing reporting rules including diagnosis test studies (STARD), observational studies (STROBE), meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE), consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) and randomized controlled trials (CONSORT) were used in these peer-reviewed articles.

Recognizing that clinicians have time constraints but then need to give the ideal care to their patients, the evidence-based methodology offers clinicians an advantageous technique for discovering current research to help in making clinical decisions, answer patient questions, and investigate alternative therapies, strategies, or materials. With a comprehension of how to viably use EBDM, professionals can rapidly and helpfully remain current with scientific discoveries on points that are essential to them and their patients.

References

DiBardino, D., Cohen, E. R., &Didwania, A. (2014). Meta‐analysis: multidisciplinary fall prevention strategies in the acute care inpatient population. Journal of hospital medicine, 7(6), 497-503.

Forrest, J. L. (2008). Evidence-based decision making: introduction and formulating good clinical questions. J Contemp Dent Pract, 1(3), 042-052.

Haines, T. P., Hill, K. D., Bennell, K. L., & Osborne, R. H. (2017). Additional exercise for older subacute hospital inpatients to prevent falls: benefits and barriers to implementation and evaluation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(8), 742-753.

Hempel, S., Newberry, S., Wang, Z., Booth, M., Shanman, R., Johnsen, B., & Ganz, D. A. (2017). Hospital fall prevention: a systematic review of implementation, components, adherence, and effectiveness. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 61(4), 483-494.

Spiva, L., & Hart, P. (2014). Evidence-Based Interventions for Preventing Falls in Acute Care Hospitals.

	Critical Appraisal Tools Worksheet Template

Critical Appraisal Tools Worksheet Template

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
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

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
Hempel, S., Newberry, S., Wang, Z., Booth, M., Shanman, R., Johnsen, B., & Ganz, D. A. (2017). Hospital fall prevention: a systematic review of implementation, components, adherence, and effectiveness. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 61(4), 483-494.	DiBardino, D., Cohen, E. R., & Didwania, A. (2014). Meta‐analysis: multidisciplinary fall prevention strategies in the acute care inpatient population. Journal of hospital medicine, 7(6), 497-503.	Haines, T. P., Hill, K. D., Bennell, K. L., & Osborne, R. H. (2017). Additional exercise for older subacute hospital inpatients to prevent falls: benefits and barriers to implementation and evaluation. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(8), 742-753.	Spiva, L., & Hart, P. (2014). Evidence-Based Interventions for Preventing Falls in Acute Care Hospitals.
Conceptual Framework Describe the theoretical basis for the study	None	multidisciplinary fall prevention interventions in acute care hospital	None	Inclusion of prospective controlled-design studies reporting the effectiveness of fall prevention programs in hospitals.
Design/Method Describe the design and how the study was carried out	Systematic review using a qualitative method	Used qualitative method where the bibliographies of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were hand searched a meta-analysis reviews	Randomized controlled trial, subgroup analysis.	Cluster randomized study
Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients, attrition rate, etc.	U.S. acute care hospitals	Acute care settings	5038 total participants. 1958 Male and 3080 Female. Patients of a metropolitan sub-acute/aged rehabilitation hospital	Acute Care Settings
Major Variables Studied List and define dependent and independent variables	Participants Studies reporting in-hospital falls for intervention groups and concurrent (e.g., controlled trials) or historic comparators (e.g., before-after studies).	The belt, older people,	Dependent – Falls, independent – exercise,	Dependent- the relative risk of a fall per occupied bed day (RR(fall)) and independent – the relative risk of being a faller (RR(faller))
Measurement Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions	Incidence rate ratios (IRR, ratio of fall rate post intervention or treatment group to the fall rate pre-intervention or control group) and ratings of study details.	Electronic fall prevention tool kit which triggered automatic ordered interventions.	multifactorial interventions including exercise to prevent inpatient falls in older adults	The primary outcome was patient falls per 1000 patient-days adjusted for site and patient care unit. A secondary outcome was fall-related injuries.
Data Analysis Statistical or qualitative findings	Meta-regressions analysis	Effect sizes (odds ratios) and 95% confidence intervals were derived for individual studies and then combined across research reports using a random-effects meta-analysis.	Intervention group participants in this subgroup analysis had a significantly lower incidence of falls than their control group counterparts (control: 16.0 falls/1000 participant-days, intervention: 8.2 falls/1000 participant-days, log-rank test: P = 0.007). However few differences in secondary balance, strength and mobility outcomes were evident.	Hospitalization further increases risk of falls
Findings and Recommendations General findings and recommendations of the research	Study shows better reporting of outcomes, implementation, adherence, intervention components, and comparison group information is necessary to establish evidence on how hospitals can successfully prevent falls.	Fall prevention strategies have a significant but small effect on fall rates despite the use of complex, multidisciplinary interventions. Additional randomized trials are needed to examine the possible benefits of multidisciplinary fall prevention strategies in the acute inpatient setting.	This exercise programme provided in addition to usual care may assist in the prevention of falls in the sub-acute hospital setting.	The authors found that precautionary care including a falls safety champion reduced the occurrence of injurious falls by 58.3% (n=36).
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?	Adherence methodologies are of specific significance for long haul changes	A broad eligibility criterion was incorporated in the study and questions were clearly reviewed and addressed.	Participants had their balance, strength and mobility assessed upon referral for the exercise programme and then again prior to discharge.	The use of a fall prevention tool kit in hospital units compared with usual care significantly reduced rate of falls.
General Notes/Comments	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

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
Hempel, S., Newberry, S., Wang, Z., Booth, M., Shanman, R., Johnsen, B., & Ganz, D. A. (2017	DiBardino, D., Cohen, E. R., & Didwania, A. (2014).	Haines, T. P., Hill, K. D., Bennell, K. L., & Osborne, R. H. (2017).	Spiva, L., & Hart, P. (2014).
Study Design Theoretical basis for the study	Systematic review using a qualitative method	systematic reviews and meta-analyses	Randomized controlled trial, subgroup analysis.	Cluster randomized study
Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients	U.S. acute care hospitals. Information on number of fallers, number of falls, fall rate (per 1,000 patient days), and number eligible to fall.	Sample sizes were not reported but the number of 1,000-patient days in treatment groups ranged from 4.3 to 160.3.	5038 total participants. 1958 Male and 3080 Female.	Comparing patient fall rates in 4 urban US hospitals in units that received usual care (4 units and 5104 patients) or the intervention (4 units and 5160 patients).
Evidence Level * (I, II, or III)	Level V	Level VII	Level 1	Level 1
Outcomes	A critical analysis of the qualitative studies surrounding the use of interventions placed to reduce the number of elderly falls in the hospital.	Fall prevention strategies had a statistically significant but small effect on fall rates despite the use of complex, multidisciplinary interventions.	Provides a meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials involving exercise	The review addressed a clear question and used broad eligibility criteria.
General Notes/Comments	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

* 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
Hempel, S., Newberry, S., Wang, Z., Booth, M., Shanman, R., Johnsen, B., & Ganz, D. A. (2017	DiBardino, D., Cohen, E. R., & Didwania, A. (2014).	Haines, T. P., Hill, K. D., Bennell, K. L., & Osborne, R. H. (2017).	Spiva, L., & Hart, P. (2014).
Sample/Setting The number and characteristics of patients	Same as above	Same as above	Same as above	Same as above
Outcomes	Studies had to report on the outcome of inpatient falls.	Fall prevention help should be considered along patient’s cultural differences.	Properly implemented fall prevention strategies and interventions are important for older adults	Falls cause injury and death for persons of all ages, but risk of falls increases markedly with age.
Key Findings	Meta-regressions showed some evidence of the importance of adherence levels to reduce falls	Fall prevention strategies have a significant but small effect on fall rates despite the use of complex, multidisciplinary interventions.	This exercise programme provided in addition to usual care may assist in the prevention of falls in the sub-acute hospital setting	The analysis of this study show that fall prevention strategies according to risk category and insufficient to prevent falls, especially low risk patients.
Appraisal and Study Quality	Population control study	Random control study	Cohort review study	True experiment evidence from the RCT
General Notes/Comments	Feasibility of the entire study through examination of recruitment, Eligibility, Protocol, adherence and missing data	Comprehensively reviews literature thus efficient in boosting the knowledge of clinical experts on about the Clinical issue. Generally ineffective unless supported by other sources	Comprehensively reviews literature thus efficient in boosting the knowledge of clinical experts on about the clinical issue.	Being a level one evidence with favourable outcomes, it helps to solve the clinical question and provides a comprehensive answer to the study question

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal Of Research Online Nursing Essay