[Solved] 6nr

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

– ## 6nr.pdf

– ## 6Appendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_20228.docx

**## 6nr.pdf**

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate your understanding of the review and
appraisal of a systematic review that includes systematic review with meta-analysis, or
meta-synthesis, and to use skills in the appraisal of research studies in your future role as a
DNP-prepared nurse. Importantly, you will review the background and intention of the
systematic review research study. As you work to find solutions to practice problems,
critical review and appraisal of systematic reviews are required.

Using the practice problem, you previously selected , continue your search and appraisal
of evidence by analyzing one systematic review research study. This research study should
not be one that was used in NR715. Address the following in the discussion:

1. Appraise the systematic review research study using the Johns Hopkins Research
Appraisal Tool. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence
Summary Tool Download Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary ToolOpen
this document with ReadSpeaker docReader.

2. Analyze the evidence summary tool of the research study to address the following in
the discussion:

a. Determine whether the research design selected by the researchers—
systematic review, systematic review with meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis
—answers their stated research question. Explain your rationale.

b. Based on information in the published study, explain if the researcher's
search was comprehensible and reproducible.

c. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if
there is an evidence-based intervention in your appraised systematic review
you might consider for translation to patients in your practice for your future
practice change project. Explain your rationale.

d. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if
you would use this systematic review research study as support for the
analysis of your selected practice problem. Explain your rationale.

Attach your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and
permalink to the selected research study.

Application of Knowledge
a. Address all bullet points in the weekly discussion accurately and thoroughly with a
substantive, in-depth discussion in the initial post
Integration of Evidence
a. Incorporate three (3) diYerent sources each week: two (2) of the three (3) should be
scholarly.
b. The initial response should include at least one peer-reviewed, scholarly source of
evidence. The other two required literature sources may be included in either the initial
post or the reply post.
c. A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.

\*\* Please be sure to follow your discussion post’s explicit instructions, as additional or
alternative sources may be required.
4. Professionalism in Communication
a. References are consistent with APA style/formatting with no error patterns; the hanging
indent is not required.
b. Presents information in an organized manner.
c. Uses clear and concise language.
d. Communicates with no error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and
punctuation.
Writing Requirements (APA style/formatting)
· In-text citations
· Reference list in correct APA style/formatting
· Standard English usage and mechanics
· A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.
· Response post(s) may require a scholarly citation and reference.

FIND AN ARTICLE HERE à https://library.chamberlain.edu/home
And no, you don’t need to sign in

**## 6Appendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_20228.docx**

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G


Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

| | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ## EBP Question: |
| ## Reviewer name(s) | ## Article number | ## Author, date, and title | ## Type of evidence | ## Population, size, and setting | ## Intervention | ## Findings that help answer the EBP question | ## Measures used | ## Limitations | ## Evidence level and quality | ## Notes to team |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |

**Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool**

**Purpose:** Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

**See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.**

**Reviewer name(s):**

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

**Article number:**

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

**Author, date, and title:**

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

**Type of evidence:**

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

**Population, size, and setting:**

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

**Intervention:**

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

**Findings that help answer the EBP question:**

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

**Measures used**:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

**Limitations:**

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

**Evidence level and quality:**

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

**Notes to team:**

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**1**

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**3**

## image1.jpeg

**## 6Appendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_20228.docx**

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G


Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

| | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ## EBP Question: |
| ## Reviewer name(s) | ## Article number | ## Author, date, and title | ## Type of evidence | ## Population, size, and setting | ## Intervention | ## Findings that help answer the EBP question | ## Measures used | ## Limitations | ## Evidence level and quality | ## Notes to team |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |

**Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool**

**Purpose:** Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

**See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.**

**Reviewer name(s):**

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

**Article number:**

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

**Author, date, and title:**

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

**Type of evidence:**

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

**Population, size, and setting:**

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

**Intervention:**

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

**Findings that help answer the EBP question:**

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

**Measures used**:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

**Limitations:**

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

**Evidence level and quality:**

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

**Notes to team:**

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**1**

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**3**

## image1.jpeg

**## 6nr.pdf**

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate your understanding of the review and
appraisal of a systematic review that includes systematic review with meta-analysis, or
meta-synthesis, and to use skills in the appraisal of research studies in your future role as a
DNP-prepared nurse. Importantly, you will review the background and intention of the
systematic review research study. As you work to find solutions to practice problems,
critical review and appraisal of systematic reviews are required.

Using the practice problem, you previously selected , continue your search and appraisal
of evidence by analyzing one systematic review research study. This research study should
not be one that was used in NR715. Address the following in the discussion:

1. Appraise the systematic review research study using the Johns Hopkins Research
Appraisal Tool. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence
Summary Tool Download Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary ToolOpen
this document with ReadSpeaker docReader.

2. Analyze the evidence summary tool of the research study to address the following in
the discussion:

a. Determine whether the research design selected by the researchers—
systematic review, systematic review with meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis
—answers their stated research question. Explain your rationale.

b. Based on information in the published study, explain if the researcher's
search was comprehensible and reproducible.

c. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if
there is an evidence-based intervention in your appraised systematic review
you might consider for translation to patients in your practice for your future
practice change project. Explain your rationale.

d. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if
you would use this systematic review research study as support for the
analysis of your selected practice problem. Explain your rationale.

Attach your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and
permalink to the selected research study.

Application of Knowledge
a. Address all bullet points in the weekly discussion accurately and thoroughly with a
substantive, in-depth discussion in the initial post
Integration of Evidence
a. Incorporate three (3) diYerent sources each week: two (2) of the three (3) should be
scholarly.
b. The initial response should include at least one peer-reviewed, scholarly source of
evidence. The other two required literature sources may be included in either the initial
post or the reply post.
c. A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.

\*\* Please be sure to follow your discussion post’s explicit instructions, as additional or
alternative sources may be required.
4. Professionalism in Communication
a. References are consistent with APA style/formatting with no error patterns; the hanging
indent is not required.
b. Presents information in an organized manner.
c. Uses clear and concise language.
d. Communicates with no error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and
punctuation.
Writing Requirements (APA style/formatting)
· In-text citations
· Reference list in correct APA style/formatting
· Standard English usage and mechanics
· A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.
· Response post(s) may require a scholarly citation and reference.

FIND AN ARTICLE HERE à https://library.chamberlain.edu/home
And no, you don’t need to sign in

**## 6Appendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_20228.docx**

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G


Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

| | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ## EBP Question: |
| ## Reviewer name(s) | ## Article number | ## Author, date, and title | ## Type of evidence | ## Population, size, and setting | ## Intervention | ## Findings that help answer the EBP question | ## Measures used | ## Limitations | ## Evidence level and quality | ## Notes to team |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |

**Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool**

**Purpose:** Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

**See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.**

**Reviewer name(s):**

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

**Article number:**

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

**Author, date, and title:**

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

**Type of evidence:**

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

**Population, size, and setting:**

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

**Intervention:**

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

**Findings that help answer the EBP question:**

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

**Measures used**:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

**Limitations:**

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

**Evidence level and quality:**

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

**Notes to team:**

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**1**

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**3**

## image1.jpeg

**## 6nr.pdf**

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate your understanding of the review and
appraisal of a systematic review that includes systematic review with meta-analysis, or
meta-synthesis, and to use skills in the appraisal of research studies in your future role as a
DNP-prepared nurse. Importantly, you will review the background and intention of the
systematic review research study. As you work to find solutions to practice problems,
critical review and appraisal of systematic reviews are required.

Using the practice problem, you previously selected , continue your search and appraisal
of evidence by analyzing one systematic review research study. This research study should
not be one that was used in NR715. Address the following in the discussion:

1. Appraise the systematic review research study using the Johns Hopkins Research
Appraisal Tool. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence
Summary Tool Download Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary ToolOpen
this document with ReadSpeaker docReader.

2. Analyze the evidence summary tool of the research study to address the following in
the discussion:

a. Determine whether the research design selected by the researchers—
systematic review, systematic review with meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis
—answers their stated research question. Explain your rationale.

b. Based on information in the published study, explain if the researcher's
search was comprehensible and reproducible.

c. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if
there is an evidence-based intervention in your appraised systematic review
you might consider for translation to patients in your practice for your future
practice change project. Explain your rationale.

d. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if
you would use this systematic review research study as support for the
analysis of your selected practice problem. Explain your rationale.

Attach your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and
permalink to the selected research study.

Application of Knowledge
a. Address all bullet points in the weekly discussion accurately and thoroughly with a
substantive, in-depth discussion in the initial post
Integration of Evidence
a. Incorporate three (3) diYerent sources each week: two (2) of the three (3) should be
scholarly.
b. The initial response should include at least one peer-reviewed, scholarly source of
evidence. The other two required literature sources may be included in either the initial
post or the reply post.
c. A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.

\*\* Please be sure to follow your discussion post’s explicit instructions, as additional or
alternative sources may be required.
4. Professionalism in Communication
a. References are consistent with APA style/formatting with no error patterns; the hanging
indent is not required.
b. Presents information in an organized manner.
c. Uses clear and concise language.
d. Communicates with no error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and
punctuation.
Writing Requirements (APA style/formatting)
· In-text citations
· Reference list in correct APA style/formatting
· Standard English usage and mechanics
· A scholarly source is (a) evidence-based, (b) peer-reviewed, and (c) published in the last
five (5) years.
· Response post(s) may require a scholarly citation and reference.

FIND AN ARTICLE HERE à https://library.chamberlain.edu/home
And no, you don’t need to sign in

**## 6Appendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Summary_Tool_20228.docx**

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G


Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

| | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| ## EBP Question: |
| ## Reviewer name(s) | ## Article number | ## Author, date, and title | ## Type of evidence | ## Population, size, and setting | ## Intervention | ## Findings that help answer the EBP question | ## Measures used | ## Limitations | ## Evidence level and quality | ## Notes to team |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |

**Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool**

**Purpose:** Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

**See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.**

**Reviewer name(s):**

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

**Article number:**

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

**Author, date, and title:**

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

**Type of evidence:**

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

**Population, size, and setting:**

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

**Intervention:**

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

**Findings that help answer the EBP question:**

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

**Measures used**:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

**Limitations:**

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

**Evidence level and quality:**

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

**Notes to team:**

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**1**

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page |
**3**

## image1.jpeg

– 1
– 2