ANSWER
Methodical Assessment and Input for a Systematic Review (SR)
1. Identification of Sections and Content Evaluation
Heading Identification: Is there a distinct heading for this section? Are the titles “Introduction,” “Background,” or “Problem Statement” for instance? If a heading is given, state it.
Review of Content:
People: Determine which population the SR is addressing.
Methods: Identify the two intervention techniques that were assessed.
Outcome: Indicate the result that these tactics are intended to influence.
Significance: Describe why it is critical to look at how the methods affect the outcome that has been identified for this demographic.
References: Do statements have references to back them up? Draw attention to any omitted citations or possible over-reliance on one source.
Questionable Statements: Look for and challenge any claims that are ambiguous or lack evidence.
Bias: Take note of whether the author seems to favor one tactic over another. If bias is apparent, give an example.
Relevance to Nursing: Describe the possible effects of this section and how it relates to nursing practice.
2. Review of PICOT Questions
Heading Identification: Check for a clear label on the PICOT section.
Restate the PICOT question or questions exactly as they are stated in the SR. Make sure you utilize complete phrases and indicate if the question supports the main goal of the SR.
For instance: “In [population], how does [intervention] compared to [comparison] impact [outcome] over [timeframe]?”
3. Goal and Methodology of the Literature Search
Goal: What is the SR’s declared goal?
Databases: List the databases (such as PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) that were utilized to search the literature.
Keywords for the search: Enumerate the Boolean operators and search phrases that were used.
Including/excluding Standards: List the criteria—such as language, study design, or date range—that were utilized to choose pertinent studies.
Replicability: Determine if the search approach is sufficiently specific to yield comparable outcomes.
4. Literature Assessment
Subheadings: Determine which subheadings—such as “Intervention Studies,” “Comparison Studies,” and “Results”—are directing the evaluation.
Academic References: Check to see if the piece draws from original, peer-reviewed research. Emphasize any secondary or non-scholarly sources.
Analysis of Intervention Strategies: Does the SR compile research on the intervention strategy?
Are details such as demographic characteristics, sample size, procedures, outcomes, and instruments covered?
Name a key topic covered in this analysis.
Analysis of the Comparison Strategy: Does the SR provide a summary of the comparison strategy?
Describe the sample, procedures, or findings in detail.
Name one important topic that was covered.
Bias Assessment: Talk about whether the author seems objective or prefers one approach over another. If bias is found, provide proof.
Overall Assessment: Evaluate the literature evaluation’s quality and offer recommendations for enhancements.
5. Nurse-Sensitive Quality Marker and Change Model
Change Model: Determine which change model was applied, such as Lewin’s Change Theory, Kotter’s Change Model, or PDSA.
nursing-Sensitive Quality Marker: Indicate whatever quality indicator was being discussed, such as nursing workload, infection rates, or patient satisfaction.
Scholarly Support: Assess if each component is backed up by scholarly sources and data.
6. General Comments and Recommendations
Advantages:
Name three of the SR’s strong points and discuss why you think they are useful or perceptive.
When the author has done something well, give them praise.
Ideas for Enhancements:
Provide two areas that the author should keep concentrating on in order to retain quality.
Choose a weak point and offer solutions to strengthen its scholarly backing, clarity, or depth.
Rules Compliance: Does the SR adhere to the formatting and assignment requirements?
Learning Outcome: After reading the SR, consider what you have learned:
Do you feel more knowledgeable now?
Do you still have unanswered queries regarding the material?
Give examples or proof to back up your response.
This methodical technique guarantees a thorough assessment while offering helpful and practical criticism. If you need help creating responses for certain SR content, please let me know!
QUESTION
1
• Is this section clearly identified by a heading? If so, identify the heading?
• Identify the population, the two strategies to be evaluated, and the outcome being affected by the strategies?
• Explain why examining the two strategies’ effect on the outcome is important for this population.
• Are there citations supporting the information presented?
• Do you question a statement made? If so, share with the author the statement you question.
• Is there written or inferred bias towards one strategy? If there is bias, provide the author with a sample from their writing.
• Identify the relevance to nursing your peers SR has
2
For RN input: PICOT question- use full sentences and cite from your peers SR
• Is this section clearly identified by a heading?
• State the PICOT question for each SR?
3
For RN input: Purpose, Literature Search Strategy
Use full sentences to address this section:
• Identify the purpose of your peers SR.
• Identify the databases used.
• Identify the search terms.
• Identify inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Are you able to duplicate the search with similar findings?
4
• What are the subheadings to guide the reader through the evaluation of literature?
• Does the evaluation/analysis of literature section contain scholarly, peer-reviewed original research sources? If not, identify which sources are not.
• Does the evaluation of literature section summarize the intervention strategy (I) studies for its effect on the outcome? Is there specific data about each study (sample, population, assessment tool, methods, results)? Identify and cite one major point discussed.
• Was there an analysis of the intervention strategy section? Identify and cite one major point discussed.
• Does the evaluation of literature section summarize the comparison strategy studies (C) effect on the outcome? Is there specific data about each study (sample, population, assessment tool, methods, results)? Identify and cite one major point discussed.
• Was there an analysis of the comparison strategy section? Identify and cite one major point discussed.
• Is there bias in the authors writing?
• Discuss the answers to these questions, citing from the SR.
5
For RN input: Model for change and Nurse-sensitive quality marker
•Identify the Model for change
•Identify the nurse-sensitive quality marker
•Identify scholarly support in each section?
6
• Provide the author with three examples of strong areas/points in their systematic review. Explain why you like these areas?
• Offer two suggestions for the author to continue doing well.
• Identify one weak area in the author’s SR. Explain why this area is weak and offer a suggestion to strengthen this area.
• Does the SR follow the guidelines provided?
• Do you know more now after reading your peers work than when you started OR do you have more questions? Explain and support your answer.