Critical Appraisal

This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42017060339, and may be accessed online at

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of a quantitative article using Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt’s (2015) rapid critical appraisal (RCA) for a randomized clinical trial. Topics included are the validity of the research, results of the research and how the information can be applied to the clinical care of my own patient population.

The study was a systematic review of scientific papers selected by a search of the SciELO, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and LILACS-BIREME databases. Among the 2169 articles found, 12 studies proved relevant to the issue and presented an evidence strength rating of B. No publications rated evidence strength A. Seven of the studies analyzed were prospective cohorts and 5 were cross-sectional studies.

Crucial essential appraisal drives the criteria for a comprehensive development master plan for a parent institution as well as proper program quality review every 5 years. Meaning, the employment of theoretical frameworks, concepts, including models assist the accreditation process for success in continued accreditation, results, more importantly, quality measures for a well-established program (Keating, 2015). In fact, administrators, notwithstanding, stakeholders, promote the institution’s mission, vision, purpose, although, fundamental goals cultivate a formidable educational program (Keating, 2015). Nevertheless, a master plan must be efficiently organized to meet academic standards, professionalism, above all, justifiable continuation

The purpose of the research review was to attempt to answer the question, does monitoring naturietic peptide twice a month for a month post discharge and altering treatment plan vs. monitoring naturietic as standard practice and altering treatment plan decrease readmission rates in Heart Failure patients after discharge from the hospital? The dependent variable was readmission of Chronic Heart Failure patients (CHF). In order to answer this question, the Cochrane Database was searched using the keywords natriuretic peptide, CHF and readmissions with no limits. The search provided 8 results. According to research naturietric peptide aids in showing the probability for readmission and can therefore

The purpose of this report is to conduct a critical appraisal of a published article.

This paper is a research critique of the article titled, “ Effect of distraction on children’s pain during intravenous catheter .” Sadeghi, Mohammadi, Shamshiri, Bagherzadeh & Hossinkhani (2013) conducted the study using a soft ball for the children to press during intravenous catheter insertion. This paper will critique the design, sample and setting, ethical considerations, data collection and analysis, and the results with recommendations of the researchers.

An important aspect involved in critical appraisal of a study involves identifying and evaluating the study framework. This allows the reader to determine whether it is appropriate to apply the study findings to nursing practice. The author of this study identified the specific perspective from which the study was developed. More specifically, the author sought to provide insight into the phenomenon of lay presence during adult CPR specifically from the perspective of ambulance staff and

It synthesizes the results of various primary studies by using strategies that reduces biases and random errors. These reviews follow a strict scientific design and provide consistent estimates about the effects of interventions, therefore, conclusions are defensible. Systematic reviews shows where knowledge is lacking and can be used to guide future research. These reviews are usually carried out in the areas of clinical tests such as diagnostic, screening and prognostic; public health interventions; economic evaluations; adverse effects and how and why interventions work. Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews undertaken by Cochrane Collaboration members, aims to help people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare

The AGREE II instrument which stands for the "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation” was developed to analyse the variability, methodology and quality of guidelines, as well as what information and how information is reported within the guidelines. (Brouwers et al., 2010).

There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.

In a world of increasing competition for health resources economic evaluations are essential to provide evidence to decision makers that allows them to make appropriate decisions regarding the best use of those resources (Cohen and Reynolds, 2008; Williams et al., 2008). Critical appraisal is the means by which the validity of this research is assessed and is essential for true evidence based practice, and decision-making (Burls, 2009; Ciliska, Thomas and Buffett, 2008).

The purpose of a systematic review is to attempt to find, evaluate and synthesize high quality research relevant to the research question. A systematic review uses carefully developed data collection and sampling procedures that are put in place in advance as a protocol. (Polit, 2012). A systematic review must contain the following: a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic coding and analysis of included studies, and a meta-analysis if possible. (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009). Systematic reviews are conducted by nurse researchers to avoid reaching incorrect or misleading conclusions that

I am in agreement with your process of critical appraisals; identifying the steps in the research process, determining the strengths and weaknesses in the studies and evaluating the validity and credibility of the studies seem to be the root elements of critical appraisals. I appreciated the scholarly article you chose linking depression and mortality among diabetes mellitus patients, particularly because of the straightforwardness of the article. it seemed the conclusion and points of the article were straight forward and the article was easy to understand. If I could suggest any addition, it would be a way to verify the credibility of the study. maybe in this study in particular there is not much incentive for lack of credibility, but in

The article critiqued is a non-experimental cross-sectional study entitled “Perceived Benefits, Motivators, and Barriers to Advancing Nurse Education: Removing Barriers to Improve Success,” by Sarver, W., Cichra, N., and Kline, M. This article provides an easily read and concise abstract, thus allowing for the identification of the article’s aims, background, method of study, the study’s results, and a conclusion of the article. This article explains how a survey that was anonymously emailed to a number of registered nurses (RN’s) at a specific hospital was able to help pinpoint a number of benefits, motivators, and barriers for registered nurses returning to school to receive their BSN. The main issue with