Student Name: EXAMPLE
Enter answer in box below question
Your article citation (APA)
Morrison, K., & Holt, K. (2015). The effectiveness of clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: An evidence review with implications for clinical practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(4), 187-198. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12102
1. Is the review thorough – does it state how extensive the search was – the number of studies/articles accessed and reviewed? Include the number of articles reviewed.
The evidence review article is very thorough. The researchers specified the parameters they used to conduct their research. Subsequently the data was reviewed by two independent researchers using critical appraisal tools. Two level I meta-analysis, four level II randomized controlled trials and thirteen research studies were utilized. The final selected 6 research articles were further reviewed in detail.
2. Approximately what percent of articles are less than 5 years old? 10 years old?
This evidence review article was published in 2015 and the researchers specified parameters to include all articles published within the last 5 years into their search criteria. In addition, in order to gain the most up to data research and focus the results the time frame was further filtered from 5 years to 1 year. Therefore, 100% of the articles reviewed were less than 5 years old.
3. Are studies from other related disciplines included, if appropriate?
Morrison and Holt mentioned other studies in this review relevant to the topic at hand. In the background section, the researchers mentioned current guidelines available regarding peripheral vascular catheter protocol. In the discussion section, the researchers attributed their results to further clinical implications and cited studies regarding the healthcare expenditures of IV replacements linking the cost repercussions to current practice.
4. Does the review rely on appropriate materials (research reports/articles)?
Yes, the review relies greatly on appropriate material. The researchers performed an extensive search on the topic at hand. They evaluated only level I and level II evidence relevant to their PICO question. The research was evaluated and portrayed within an evidence table in the evidence review. In addition, the studies were all assessed for bias.
5. Is the review only a summary of existing work, or does it critically appraise and compare key studies?
The review summarized existing work in the background section. The researchers conducted a thorough search on the subject and critically appraised and compared 6 major studies. The results were analyzed for each study and compared to determine if replacing peripheral intravenous catheters only when clinically indicated compared to every 72-96 hours increases the adult patient’s risk for infection or phlebitis. Each study is interpreted, and the main objectives, method and results are listed in Table 7.
6. Does the review identify important gaps in the literature?
Yes, the review identifies important gaps in literature. The background information on the subject matter stems from studies in the 1980’s after which the CDC based the 72-96-hour protocol from. CDC 2011 protocol is based on studies conducted in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The studies conducted assessed the difference among infection rates between 72 vs. 96 hours. It is also mentioned that there were no studies focusing on infection rates beyond 96 hours. One study that was performed was listed to have a small sample size making it hard to attribute to the general population. The next extensive review was published in 2010 by Webster indicating that there was no conclusive evidence found regarding changing catheters every 72-96 hours.
7. Is the review well organized?
The review is well organized and thorough. The researchers begin with important background information on the subject matter and choose to analyze only level I and level II evidence. The method section describes the article selection in great detail and the selected articles are extensively summarized to provide the reader with necessary information and the results of the research conducted.
8. Is the review objective? How can you tell?
This evidence review was objective because it involved an extensive research process and examined the data depicted by previous researchers. The research compared the replacement of peripheral catheters every 72-96 hours to replacement when clinically indicated and its result on infection rates. Significance was determined for all studies and analyzed in detail in this evidence review.
9. Does the author paraphrase, or is there an over-reliance on quotes from an original source?
The author paraphrase’s and provides great detail on the research presented in this evidence review. All of the research studies reviewed are summarized within the analysis and detailed within Table 7 of the evidence review article.
10. What is your overall impression of the review? Would you use it as a resource if completing a project on this topic?
I would definitely use this article as a resource. The researchers conducted a thorough search and provided the reader with detail on the topic at hand. This evidence review directly answers my PICO question. The researchers used the strongest evidence within their studies (level I and level II evidence). In addition, the search parameters were set to specific terms applicable to my EBP question. Each study was summarized in detail. Each study was assessed for potential bias. Furthermore, the evidence from the research found that there was no significant difference in the rates of phlebitis or infection in all these studies. Concluding that there is clear evidence to suggest that IV replacement should occur based on clinical judgement and not the 72-96-hour policy which most healthcare facilities continue to rely on today.
The post The evidence review article is very thorough. The researchers specified the parameters they used to conduct their research. Subsequently the data was reviewed by two independent researchers using critical appraisal tools. Two level I meta-analysis, four level II randomized controlled trials and thirteen research studies were utilized. The final selected 6 research articles were further reviewed in detail ACADEMIC ASSISTERS. ACADEMIC ASSISTERS.
>>>Click here to get this paper written at the best price. 100% Custom, 0% plagiarism.<<<
The post The evidence review article is very thorough. The researchers specified the parameters they used to conduct their research. Subsequently the data was reviewed by two independent researchers using critical appraisal tools. Two level I meta-analysis, four level II randomized controlled trials and thirteen research studies were utilized. The final selected 6 research articles were further reviewed in detail appeared first on First Class Essay Writers.