Evidence level and quality rating

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 · Are recommendations clear? · Yes · No Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question Complete the corresponding quality rating section. Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Appendix F Non-Research Evidence Appraisal 1 · 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 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 · 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 · Are potential biases acknowledged? · Yes · No Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question Complete the corresponding quality rating section. 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 · N/A Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question Complete the corresponding quality rating section. · Case report LEVEL V In-depth look at a person or group or another social unit · 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 · Evidence obtained is consistent · Yes · No · N/A 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) 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.

Evidence level and quality rating

Evidence level and quality rating is rated 4.8/5 based on 728 customer reviews.

Are you in need of homework help?
Place your order and get 100% original work.




Get Homework Help Now



Related Posts

Why Choose Us
  1. Confidentiality and Privacy
  2. 100% Original Work
  3. 24/7 Customer Support
  4. Unlimited Free Revisions
  5. Experienced Writers
  6. Real-time Communication
  7. Affordable Prices
  8. Deadline Guaranteed