Yale New Haven Health Nursing Research and Practice Committee Non-Research Literature Appraisal Tool Article Number Author(s): Article Title: Journal: Year Published: Volume: Number: Pages Numbers: of Evidence and Grading: Fill in after completing appraisal (see Appendix A and B) Level of Evidence (Circle one): I II III IV V Quality (Circle one): High Good Low Is this a reputable source of evidence? Yes ⎕ No ⎕ Appraisal Category (check category) Summary of Publication Appraisal ☐ Clinical Practice Guidelines: Systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel. ☐ Consensus/Position Statement: Systematically developed recommendations based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion that guides members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern. Write a brief summary with key points Were types of evidence used identified? ☐ yes ☐no Were appropriate stakeholders/disciplines involved in the development of recommendations? ☐ yes ☐no Are groups/population to which recommendations apply and do not apply clearly stated? ☐ yes ☐no Have potential biases been eliminated? ☐ yes ☐no Were recommendations valid (reproducible search, expert consensus, independent review, current, and level of supporting evidence identified for each recommendation)? ☐ yes ☐no Were recommendations supported by evidence? ☐ yes ☐no Are recommendations clear? ☐ yes ☐no ☐ Literature Review: Summary of published literature without systematic appraisal of evidence quality or strength. Write a brief summary with key points Is subject matter under review clearly stated? ☐ yes ☐no Is relevant, timely literature included (most sources within last 5 years or seminal work)? ☐ yes ☐no Trial
V Evidence (Based on experiential and non-research evidence) Case Reports Reports that describe the history of a single patient, or a group of patients, usually in the form of a story. Case Study An intensive investigation of a case involving a person or small group of persons, an issue or an event. Expert Opinion/ Manufacturer’s Recommendations Melnyk, B. & Fineout-Overholt,, E. (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Level of Evidence Type of Evidence Strongest I (A) Evidence from systematic review or meta-analysis of multiple controlled studies with results that consistently support a specific action, intervention or treatment II (B) Evidence from at least one well designed controlled study, randomized & non-randomized, with results that support a specific action, intervention or treatment III (C) Evidence from qualitative studies, descriptive or correlational studies, integrative reviews or randomized controlled trials with inconsistent results IV (D) Evidence from peer reviewed professional organizational standards, with clinical evidence to support recommendations; Includes non-experimental studies V (E) Weakest Evidence from theory based evidence from expert opinion or multiple case reports; Interpretation of non-research based information by experts VI (M) Manufacturers’ recommendations only Based on: AACN’s evidence-leveling system Armola, R.R., Bourgault, A.M., Halm, M.A., Board, R.M, Bucher, L, Harrington, L., Heafey, C… & Medina, J. (2009). Upgrading the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses’ evidence-leveling hierarchy. American Journal of Critical Care, 18, 405-40. Appendix B: Grading the Evidence Level of Evidence Quality Grading Guides Level I A High quality: consistent results, sufficient sample size, adequate control, and definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations on extensive literature review that includes thoughtful reference to scientific evidence. Level II