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)

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now

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.

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

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

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.