EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 2: ADVANCED LEVELS OF CLINICAL INQUIRY AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?
In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
To Prepare:
· Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
· Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
· Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
· Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
· Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
· Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
· Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
· Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
· Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 5
Submit Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.
1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD3Assgn+last name+first initial
2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.
Rubric
NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
|
NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2: Advanced
Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Create a 6- to 7-slide
PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following: · Identify and briefly
describe your chosen clinical issue of interest. · Describe how you developed
a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest. ·
Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for
the peer-reviewed articles you selected. · Describe the levels of evidence in
each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an
explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical
research. Be specific and provide examples.
|
|
80 to >71.0 pts
Excellent
The presentation clearly and accurately identifies and describes in
detail the chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation clearly
and accurately describes in detail the developed PICO(T) question. ...The
presentation clearly and accurately identifies four or more research
databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.
...The presentation includes specific and relevant examples that fully
support the research. ...The presentation provides a complete, detailed,
and accurate synthesis of two outside resources related to the
peer-reviewed articles selected, and fully integrates at least two outside
resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the
presentation.
|
71 to >63.0 pts
Good
The presentation accurately identifies and describes the chosen
clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation accurately describes the
developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen clinical issue of
interest. ...The presentation accurately identifies at least four research
databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed articles selected.
...The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research
presented.
|
63 to >55.0 pts
Fair
The presentation inaccurately or vaguely identifies and describes the
chosen clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation inaccurately or
vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question focused on the chosen
clinical issue of interest. ...The presentation inaccurately or vaguely
identifies at least four research databases used to conduct a search for
the peer-reviewed articles selected. ...The presentation includes
inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented.
|
55 to >0 pts
Poor
The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies and describes
the chosen clinical issue of interest or is missing. ...The presentation
inaccurately and vaguely describes the developed PICO(T) question or is
missing. ...The presentation inaccurately and vaguely identifies less than
four research databases used to conduct a search for the peer-reviewed
articles selected or is missing. ...The presentation includes inaccurate
and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing.
|
|
80 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResource Synthesis
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Using proper in-text citations, the presentation clearly and
accurately provides at least four peer-reviewed systematic review type
articles selected, describes the levels of evidence in each of the four
articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the
strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Using proper in-text citations, the presentation accurately provides
at least four systematic review type peer-reviewed articles selected
including adequate explanation of the levels of evidence, the strengths of
using a systematic review for
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Using proper in-text citations, the presentation provides a vague or
inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the systematic review
type peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally explains the
levels of evidence and the strengths of using a systematic review and/or
minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
The presentation provides a vague and inaccurate synthesis of no
outside resources related to the articles selected and fails to integrate
any resources to support the presentation or is missing.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResource
FormattingAppropriate peer-reviewed articles are included and citations use
APA format.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Presentation includes 4 or more peer-reviewed articles selected using
systematic reviews for clinical research. ...Citations use correct APA
format with no errors.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Presentation includes 3 peer-reviewed articles selected using
systematic reviews for clinical research. ...Citations use correct APA
format with few (1-2) errors.
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Presentation includes 2 peer-reviewed articles selected using
systematic reviews for clinical research. ...Citations contain several
(3-4) APA format errors.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Presentation includes 1 or no resources. ... Citations contain many
>5 APA format errors.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePowerPoint
Presentation:The presentation is professional; images are appropriately
attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation
flows well and is presented in a logical order.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
The presentation is professional; images are appropriately
attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is readable.
Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Eighty percent of the presentation is professional; images are
appropriately attributed; images are clear. The presentation text is
readable. Presentation flows well and is presented in a logical order.
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Sixty to seventy nine percent of the presentation follows these
guidelines: presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed;
images are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows
well and is presented in a logical order.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Less than sixty percent of the presentation follows these guidelines:
presentation is professional; images are appropriately attributed; images
are clear. The presentation text is readable. Presentation flows well and
is presented in a logical order.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression
and Formatting—English Writing Standards:Correct grammar, mechanics, and
proper punctuation.
|
|
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
|
4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors.
|
3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors.
|
2 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
|
|
5 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100
|
PreviousNext
