- Premium Academic Help From Professionals
- +1 757 528 8682
- support@standardwriter.com
Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Reviews
Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Reviews
|
Order Number |
5892785948 |
|
Type of Project |
ESSAY |
|
Writer Level |
PHD VERIFIED |
|
Format |
APA |
|
Academic Sources |
10 |
|
Page Count |
3-12 PAGES |
Instructions/Descriptions
Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Reviews
Nurs 6052n Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews (Wk4-5)
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.
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 for the Assignment.
- 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 3: 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 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.
- Citations must match references. Kindly follow the Instructions and Rubric. It helps.
RUBRIC
| Part 3: 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 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. | 81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
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 clearly and accurately provides full APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including a thorough and detailed explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. 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. |
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
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 accurately provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an adequate explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes relevant examples that support the research presented. The presentation provides an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the presentation. |
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
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 inaccurately or vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate or vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. The presentation includes inaccurate or vague examples to support the research presented. The presentation provides a vague or inaccurate synthesis or outside resources related to the peer-reviewed articles selected. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the presentation. |
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
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 inaccurately and vaguely provides APA citations for at least four peer-reviewed articles selected, including an inaccurate and vague explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research, or is missing. The presentation includes inaccurate and vague examples to support the research presented or is missing. 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. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion are provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
| Total Points: 100 |
Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Reviews
