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 |
| Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
| Complete the corresponding quality rating section. |
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F: Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix F
Non-Research Evidence Appraisal
1
| · 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 |
| Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
| Complete the corresponding quality rating section. |
| · 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 stated? | · Yes | · No |
| · Are potential biases acknowledged? | · Yes | · No |
| Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
| Complete the corresponding quality rating section. |
| Organizational Experience
· Quality improvement LEVEL V Cyclical method to examine workflows, processes, or systems with a specific organization · Financial evaluation LEVEL V Economic evaluation that applies analytic techniques to identify, measure, and compare the cost and outcomes of two or more alternative programs or interventions · Program evaluation LEVEL V Systematic assessment of the processes and/or outcomes of a program; can involve both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods |
|||
| Setting: | Sample Size/Composition: | ||
| · Was the aim of the project clearly stated? | · Yes | · No | |
| · Was the method fully described? | · Yes | · No | |
| · Were process or outcome measures identified? | · Yes | · No | |
| · Were results fully described? | · Yes | · No | |
| · Was interpretation clear and appropriate? | · Yes | · No | |
| · Are components of cost/benefit or cost effectiveness analysis described? | · Yes | · No | · N/A |
| Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | |||
| Complete the corresponding quality rating section. |
| · Case report LEVEL V
In-depth look at a person or group or another social unit |
||
| · Is the purpose of the case report clearly stated? | · Yes | · No |
| · Is the case report clearly presented? | · Yes | · No |
| · Are the findings of the case report supported by relevant theory or research? | · Yes | · No |
| · Are the recommendations clearly stated and linked to the findings? | · Yes | · No |
| Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question | ||
| Complete the corresponding quality rating. |
| Community standard, clinician experience, or consumer preference LEVEL V
· Community standard: Current practice for comparable settings in the community · Clinician experience: Knowledge gained through practice experience · Consumer preference: Knowledge gained through life experience |
|||
| Information Source(s) | Number of Sources | ||
| · Source of information has credible experience | · Yes | · No | · N/A |
| · Opinions are clearly stated | · Yes | · No | · N/A |
| · Evidence obtained is consistent | · Yes | · No | · N/A |
| Findings That Help You Answer the EBP Question | |||
| Complete the corresponding quality rating section. |
| Quality Rating for Clinical Practice Guidelines, Consensus, or Position Statements (Level IV) |
| A High quality
Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; documentation of a systematic literature search strategy; consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; criteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studies and definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years. B Good quality Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, or private organization or a government agency; reasonably thorough and appropriate systematic literature search strategy; reasonably consistent results, sufficient numbers of well-designed studies; evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies with fairly definitive conclusions; national expertise clearly evident; developed or revised within the past five years. C Low quality or major flaw Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency; undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy; no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies; insufficient evidence with inconsistent results; conclusions cannot be drawn; not revised within the past five years. |
| Quality Rating for Organizational Experience (Level V) |
| A High quality
Clear aims and objectives; consistent results across multiple settings; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations with thorough reference to scientific evidence. B Good quality Clear aims and objectives; formal quality improvement or financial evaluation methods used; consistent results in a single setting; reasonably consistent recommendations with some reference to scientific evidence. C Low quality or major flaws Unclear or missing aims and objectives; inconsistent results; poorly defined quality; improvement/financial analysis method; recommendations cannot be made. |
| Quality Rating for Case Report, Integrative Review, Literature Review, Expert Opinion, Community Standard, Clinician Experience, Consumer Preference (Level V) |
| A High quality
Expertise is clearly evident, draws definitive conclusions, and provides scientific rationale; thought leader in the field. B Good quality Expertise appears to be credible, draws fairly definitive conclusions, and provides logical argument for opinions. C Low quality or major flaws Expertise is not discernable or is dubious; conclusions cannot be drawn. |
