Description
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.
To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD3Assgn+last name+first initial
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
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
