Evidence Based Practice Proposal essay


Marie Barthelemy

Grand Canyon University

May 31, 201

The research employed a varietyof search methods that got obtained from the most electronicdatabases, for instance, the Cochrane Central Register of ControlledTrials acted as a source of various reports that get based onquasi-randomized as well as randomized controlled trials. It obtainsa majority of its information from Medline and Embase which areusually other search engines (Lefebvre et.al,&nbsp2008). On theother hand, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews acts as theleading resource for systematic reviews in health care itencompasses some protocols and editorials. It majors on primaryresearch in health policy and human health care and focuses on theinvestigation of the effects of some of the interventions, treatmentsand rehabilitation procedures (MacLehose &amp Hilton, 2013).

The National Guideline ClearingHouse is a database that gets presented on a public platform thatdeals with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines as well as therelated documents. It provides an opportunity to most users of theinternet with free access to fundamental guidelines through theprovision of a link (Haskell et.al, 2013). It has a variety ofcomponents that entails standardized abstracts that get structuredwith information on various directions. Also, it presents synthesisof guidelines that cover relevant topics within the health caredelivery system and focuses on a wider aspect of highlighting thereal similarities and differences that gets shown.

TheCumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature(CINAHL)is a definitive tool for nursing and other related professionals itenables its users to get full-text access to journals, and itprovides faster retrieval of information on matters concerningevidenced based care sheets, quick lessons and much more. It hasundergone accreditation by various boards of the medical field, andit interrelates with other agencies such as EBSCO point care and theNursing Reference Center with an aim of ensuring that it offersadequate and current information. Ovid provides opportunities tnurses and other personnel from the medical field to access vitalinformation that might help them in their practice (Solomon, 2014). It offers information in detailed journals and periodicals, whileMedline links physicians to critical information that they mightrequire in their practice, it provides relevant information andenhances the acquisition of knowledge at the touch of a button (Korff&amp Sander, 2015).

The keywords that exist withinthe various search engines only recognize some English words withnumerous efforts being made day in day out to accommodate othermedical terms. From a study that got conducted between 1990 and 2005,some keyword that got presented in the search were self-management,self-monitoring, systematic reviews, pediatric asthma review and allthese and much more got explored in the contexts of health care. Theinclusion criteria included all words that related to the medicalprofession, while the exclusion criteria got based on articles thatgot published using other languages apart from English.

of research studies

Different search engines gotapplied with an aim of discovering the best practices, theCumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL)complete, Science Direct and Google Scholar got employed, and amaximum of 7 articles got picked where 6 of them attested to issuesconcerning mentoring while one of the papers represented the adverseeffect of mentoring (Wishart,2012).

The validity of both the internaland external research is that they were able to depict criticalinformation that got used in clinical practice. Also, criticism ofthe presented materials got enhanced, and this stipulated the variousadvantages and disadvantages of the issues that got produced by thesearch methods. The search methods proved to provide valuableinformation to the medical field as they portrayed all aspects of thedesired search as long as the keywords got presented in English.



Q1.The outcome of the study is valid, and the cases got obtained througha random sampling method, the selection of the controls wasappropriate as they represented a sample that did not possess thecharacteristics of interest. The data collection methods weresystematic, and this got maintained so as to try and identify thecorrect results as well as to preserve issues of validity andreliability in the study.

Q2.Theresults depicted that the various search methods were valid andexceptional in the way they presented their information as they werereliable sources of information to the general medical field. Anestimate of effect failed to get administered, and there were nostatistical data obtained, but many comparisons of data got employed,and it got discovered that some search methods were efficient thanothers. There exists no possibility of the emergence of biases(McBride, 2011).

Q3.Theresults obtained will help me in taking care of the patients sincethey provide extensive information, the study patients hadsimilarities and the results compared with the previous studies asthey almost produced similar results/findings. My patients/familyvalues and expectations of the outcome are that the search methodswould provide the most efficient solutions to healthcare.


Q1.There existed a well-defined as well as a representative of patientsat a similar instance in the prognosis of the disease follow-up wasnot given enough attention. It lacked objectivity and portrayed theincorporation of unbiased criteria that got used. Also, analysis gotadjusted with an aim of shaping some vital prognostic confoundingvariables and risk factors.

Q2.There existed a close magnitude of the relationship between targetedoutcomes and predictors, and the outcome event was highly likely overa specified period, the precision of study estimates was almostcongruent to each other.

Q3.Patients who got involved in the study, presented with similarcharacteristics to my own, and the outcomes will lead straight toavoiding or selecting therapy, but at the same time, these outcomesprove as being imperative in circumstances of counseling andreassuring patients.


Q1.Thesubjects got assigned randomly to control and experimental groupsthe random assignment lacked concealment from persons who wereenrolling specimens into the study for the first time. Providers anditems did not portray characters of blindness to the study groupexplanations were given with an aim of explaining why subjects failedto complete the study. Assessments that get done during follow-upswere not conducted to the maximum and failed to investigate theeffects of the interventions thoroughly. Participants got analyzed ingroups that got assigned to them on a randomized basis. The unit ofcontrol was effective, and assessment tools that got utilized inmeasuring the results were reliable and valid (Twibellet al., 2012).

Q2.Intervention or treatment was considerably large and of highsignificance, and they were a little bit precise.

Q3.All important clinical outcomes got measured, and the treatment in myclinical setting appeared to be possible patients/ family values andexpectations were the findings of the study to have a positive effecton the prevention and treatment of various ailments.

Clinicalintervention studies

Q1.Randomized-controlledtrials are the studies that exist in the review led trials, thereport includes a comprehensive description of the strategy that gotemployed in the search and it aimed at finding all sensible studies(Chandler,2012). The reportgives an explanation of ways in which the validity of single studiesgot determined, and the outcomes depicted some aspects of consistencyacross all studies, and individual patient information or aggregategot utilized in analysis.

Q2.The treatment effects are relatively large while interventions andtreatments proved as being precise.

Q3.My patients present with similarities to the ones in the interview,and I think that it is important to put into practice the identifiedoutcomes in my setting of practice. Most clinically significantresults got considered and they incorporated certain factors such asbenefits and risks of treatment. Clinically, my assessment of thepatients is that, they are responding positively, and there are nocontraindications that might hinder me from implementing thetreatment.


Thestudy participants got chosen on a random basis, the accuracy andcompleteness of data got assured by the establishment of the validityand reliability of the survey, the results were plausible, and theimplications of the research got started, the results had positiveeffects on the reader.

Q2.The approach to the research fits the results of the research,concepts and language involved presents some consistency to theapproach, the techniques that got used in the analysis and collectionof data are appropriate. The survey presents some significance thatget presented as explicit, literature review supports a need for thisstudy, it portrays some potential contribution. For instance, itopened up new areas of research and explorations in the medical fieldas well as boosted understanding of issues. The strategy that gotused in sampling was evident and followed a guide on the needs of thestudy the implementer does not lead the process of sample selection,and the composition of the sample and its size reflects the researchrequirements.

Q3.The obtained results get presented as a relevant to individuals in asimilar situation and to the patient’s values and circumstances.Four results got applied in clinical practice.


Thedevelopers of the guidelines were researchers who had previouslyconducted such studies they were representatives of key stakeholdersin this specialty. A variety of research agencies funded theguideline development. The guidelines developers did not supportresearchers of viewed studies (Pellico et al., 2009).The team’sdevelopment strategy was valid. An impartial, reasonable, andaccurate process got unused in the identification, selection andcombination of evidence.

Thedevelopers did not conduct a reproducible review of the literature inthe past 12 months after a draft got presented. The importantoutcomes and options got put into consideration each recommendationthat appears in the guideline got tagged on the basis of their levelas well as the accuracy of evidence under which it got linked withscientific evidence. The guidelines offer a situation where explicitrecommendations got drafted, and it got subjected to peer review.


Chandler,G. E. (2012). Succeeding in the first year of practice: Heed thewisdom of novice nurses.&nbspJournalfor Nurses in Professional Development,28(3),103-107.

Haskell,&nbspL., Jue,&nbspJ.,Cunningham,&nbspS., Nix,&nbspM., &amp Coates,&nbspV. (2013). 091If we Build It, Will you Search for It? Finding Multiple ChronicCondition Guidelines in the National Guideline Clearinghouse. BMJQuality &amp Safety, 22 (Suppl 1), A41-A41.doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002293.122

Korff,&nbspM.&nbspV.,Deffarges,&nbspB., &amp Sander,&nbspT. (2015). Data Mining inMEDLINE for Disease-Disease Associations Via Second OrderCo-Occurrence. 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on ComputationalIntelligence. doi:10.1109/ssci.2015.54

Lefebvre,&nbspC., Eisinga,&nbspA.,McDonald,&nbspS., &amp Paul,&nbspN. (2008). Enhancing access toreports of randomized trials published world-wide – the contributionof EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of ControlledTrials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library. Emerg Themes Epidemiol,5(1), 13. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-5-13

MacLehose,&nbspH., &ampHilton,&nbspJ. (2013). Changes to the Cochrane Library during theCochrane Collaboration`s First 20 Years. Editorials.doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000050

McBride, A. B. (2011). Thegrowth and development of nurse leaders.New York: Springer Publishers Company.

Pellico, L. H., Brewer, C. S., &ampKovner, C. T. (2009). What newly licensed registered nurses have tosay about their first experiences. NursingOutlook, 57, 4,194-203.

Solomon,&nbspJ. (2014). TheInfluence of Ovid in Opera. Miller/A Handbook to the Reception ofOvid, 371-385. doi:10.1002/9781118876169.ch25

Twibell,R., St Pierre, J., Johnson, D., Barton, D., Davis, C., Kidd, M., &ampRook, G. (2012). Tripping over the welcome mat: Why new nurses do notstay and what the evidence says we can do about it.&nbspAmericanNurse Today,&nbsp7(6),357-365.Bottomof Form

Wishart,&nbspJ. (2012).CINAHL201277 CINAHL . Ipswich, MA: EBSCO Publishing Last visitedOctober 2011. Contact publisher for pricing information URL:www.ebscohost.com/academic/the‐cinahl‐database.Reference Reviews, 26(2), 37-38.doi:10.1108/09504121211205223