Teacher A + lets chat for more detailAssignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 4: Critical Appraisal of Research
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

To Prepare:

· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
· Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.

Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.

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.
By Day 7 of Week 7

Submit Part 4A and 4B of your Evidence-Based Project.
Submission and Grading InformationEvaluation 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 APA formatted citation of selected article.

Article #1

Article #2

Article #3

Article #4

Evidence Level *

(I, II, or III)

Conceptual Framework

Describe the theoretical basis for the study (If there is not one mentioned in the article, say that here).**

Design/Method
Describe the design and how the study was carried out (In detail, including inclusion/exclusion criteria).

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 (You need to list the actual tests done).

Data Analysis Statistical or

Qualitative findings
(You need to enter the actual numbers determined by the statistical tests or qualitative data).

Findings and Recommendations

General findings and recommendations of the research

Appraisal and Study Quality

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?

Key findings

Outcomes

General Notes/Comments

*These levels are from the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Evidence Level and Quality Guide
· 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

**Note on Conceptual Framework

· The following information is from Walden academic guides which helps explain conceptual frameworks and the reasons they are used in research. Here is the link https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/conceptualframework

· Researchers create theoretical and conceptual frameworks that include a philosophical and methodological model to help design their work. A formal theory provides cRubric Detail

 

Select 

Grid View

 or 

List View

 to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_6052_Module04_Week07_Assignment_Rubric

·
Grid View

· List View

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

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 Tool Worksheet Template. Be sure to include: · An Evaluation Table

45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.

Part 4B: Evidence-Based Best Practices Based on your 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.

32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.

Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.

Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.

25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses prADVANCE CLINICAL INQUIRY & SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Name
Walden University
Essentials Of Evedenced-based Practice
Instructor
date

S

Clinical Issue of Interest

Depression with Bipolar is the clinical issue of concern
The application of the correct medication is the main point of concern in this case
Having the correct choice towards the medical practice is the critical point.
Precise medical practices offer the long term solution.
Enneking et al., (2020) Analyzed the effect of electroconvulsive therapy in adult psychiatric mental health patient with Major Depressive Disorder using metal analysis and quantitative study. The variance range that proofs the efficacy is relatively low, my main concern is the question “ If the rate of response and efficacy of ECT ranges from 0.397 to 0.286 living the difference of 0.1 margin. 

2

ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER FOR OF PICOT QUESTION
The clinical issues arouses a concern that lead to set of questions such as :-
What is the concerns or issues?
Who are the patients that are directly affected by the clinical concerns?
What are the designated set of intervention or suggested solutions?
Are the interventions testable, and
How soon could the interventions be tested ?
These set of Questions will then be put together systematically using the acronyms PICOT

PICOT Question
In adults ( >18yr, Male and female) with diagnosis of major depression with bipolar disorder (P) should Psychiatrist use (I ) anti-depressant medications more often as treatment of choice or Electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) (C) To stimulate the brain and improve mental acuity (O) Within 6 months period? (T)
The development of the question came in terms of the preferred medical choice towards the case.
The complication that came with appropriate decision making seemed to be the point of concern
Factors such as the medical outcomes that came with the activities is the critical point of concern.

The question was develop based on the real health issue affecting the society at the time which is a critical matter of concern in this respective case.

4

Sources of Database
The selection of data was done through the following data bases
Psch-Info data-base (2020)
CINAHL with Med-
Proquest
Pub-Med

Peer-reviewed sources
Phillips, J. L., Jaworska, N., Kamler, E., Bhat, V., Blier, J., Foster, J. A., Hassel, S., Ho, K., McMurray, L., Milev, R., Moazamigoudarzi, Z., Placenza, F. M., Richard-Devantoy, S., Rotzinger, S., Turecki, G., Vazquez, G. H., Kennedy, S. H., & Blier, P. (2020). A randomized, crossover comparison of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy for treatment of major depressive episodes: A Canadian biomarker integration network in depression (CAN-BIND) study protocol. BMC Psychiatry, 20. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02672-3

Peer-reviewed sources
Enneking, V., Dzvonyar, F., Dück, K., Dohm, K., Grotegerd, D., Förster, K., Meinert, S., Lemke, H., Klug, M., Waltemate, L., Goltermann, J.,




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.