Complete all five of the evidence appraisals using the the correct appraisal form. There are two different appraisal forms. The appropriate one should be used for the specific article.  There are five articles that need to be appraised. I provided in the attachments the different appraisal forms, and the five articles.

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool

 The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University
1

Evidence level and quality rating:

Article title: Number:

Author(s): Publication date:

Journal:

Setting: Sample

(composition and size):

Does this evidence address my EBP
question?

❑ Yes

❑ No
Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence.

❑ Clinical Practice Guidelines LEVEL IV
Systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research
evidence or expert consensus panel

❑ Consensus or Position Statement LEVEL IV
Systematically developed recommendations, based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion,
that guide members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern

■■ Are the types of evidence included identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Were appropriate stakeholders involved in the development of
recommendations?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are groups to which recommendations apply and do not apply
clearly stated?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Have potential biases been eliminated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Does each recommendation have an identified level of evidence
stated?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are recommendations clear? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete the corresponding quality rating section.

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool

 The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University
2

❑ Literature review LEVEL V
Summary of selected published literature including scientific and nonscientific such as reports of
organizational experience and opinions of experts

❑ Integrative review LEVEL V
Summary of research evidence and theoretical literature; analyzes, compares themes, notes gaps in the
selected literature

■■ Is subject matter to be reviewed clearly stated? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is literature relevant and up-to-date (most sources are within the past five
years or classic)?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Of the literature reviewed, is there a meaningful analysis of the conclusions
across the articles included in the review?

❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are gaps in the literature identified? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Are recommendations made for future practice or study? ❑ Yes ❑ No

Complete the corresponding quality rating.

❑ Expert opinion LEVEL V
Opinion of one or more individuals based on clinical expertise

■■ Has the individual published or presented on the topic? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is the author’s opinion based on scientific evidence? ❑ Yes ❑ No

■■ Is the author’s opinion clearly sta

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool

 The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University
1

Evidence level and quality rating:

Article title: Number:

Author(s): Publication date:

Journal:

Setting: Sample

(composition and size):

Does this evidence address my EBP
question?

❑ Yes

❑ No
Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence.

Is this study:
■■ QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data)

Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in
research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a
program, problem, or condition, measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data.
Common methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and reviews of records or
documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis.

Go to Section I: QuaNtitative
■■ QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data)

Rich narrative documents are used for uncovering themes; describes a problem or condition from the point
of view of those experiencing it. Common methods are focus groups, individual interviews (unstructured or
semistructured), and participation/observations. Sample sizes are small and are determined when data
saturation is achieved. Data saturation is reached when the researcher identifies that no new themes
emerge and redundancy is occurring. Synthesis is used in data analysis. Often a starting point for
studies when little research exists; may use results to design empirical studies. The researcher describes,
analyzes, and interprets reports, descriptions, and observations from participants.

Go to Section II: QuaLitative
■■ Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively)

Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using both approaches, in
combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than using either approach alone.
Sample sizes vary based on methods used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing
both quaNtitative and quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is continual and
can influence stages in the research process.

Go to Section I for QuaNtitative components and Section II for QuaLitative components

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool

Section I: QuaNtitative
Level of Evidence (Study Design)

A. Is this a report of a single research study?

❑ Yes

❑ No
Go to B.

1. Was there manipulation of an independent

Running Head: FIVE SOURCES OF BEST EVIDENCE 1

FIVE SOURCES OF BEST EVIDENCE 3

Five Sources of Best Evidence


PICO

P – (Patient, Population, or Problem): Hospitalized patients with indwelling catheters from any age, ethnicity, or sex.

I – (Intervention): Early removal of indwelling catheters.

C – (Comparison with other treatments, if applicable): Daily chlorhexidine baths and frequent assessments.

O – (Outcomes): Decrease in the number of catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

Question: For patients with indwelling urinary catheters, will the early removal of indwelling catheters decrease the incidence of CAUTI?

References

Bell, M. M., Alaestante, G., & Finch, C. (2016). A multidisciplinary intervention to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections using education, continuum of care, and systemwide buy-in. The Ochsner Journal, 16(1), 96–100.

Bernard, M. S., Hunter, K. F., & Moore, K. N. (2012). A review of strategies to decrease the duration of indwelling urethral catheters and potentially reduce the incidence of catheter- associated urinary tract infections. Urologic Nursing, 32(1), 29-37.

Clarke, K., Tong, D., Pan, Y., et al. (2012). Reduction in catheter-associated urinary tract infections by bundling interventions. International Journal For Quality In Health Care, 25(1), 43-49. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzs077

Parker V, Giles M, Graham L, et al. (2017). Avoiding inappropriate urinary catheter use and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI): a pre-post control intervention study. BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17:314. doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2268-2.

Tripepi-Bova, K., Sun, Z., Mason, D., & Albert, N. (2013). Early removal of urinary catheters in patients with thoracic epidural catheters. Journal Of Nursing Care Quality, 28(4), 340-344. doi: 10.1097/NCQ.0b013e3182922b2d