Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NSG 6430 Assignment: Evidence-Based Research Review

NSG 6430 Assignment: Evidence-Based Research Review

Traditional clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly. Nonquantitative systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. Meta-analyses (quantitative systematic reviews) seek to answer a focused clinical question, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. This article presents guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article for American Family Physician. First, the topic should be of common interest and relevance to family practice. Include a table of the continuing medical education objectives of the review. State how the literature search was done and include several sources of evidence-based reviews, such as the Cochrane Collaboration, BMJ’s Clinical Evidence, or the InfoRetriever Web site. Where possible, use evidence based on clinical outcomes relating to morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, and studies of primary care populations. In articles submitted to American Family Physician, rate the level of evidence for key recommendations according to the following scale: level A (randomized controlled trial [RCT], meta-analysis); level B (other evidence); level C (consensus/expert opinion). Finally, provide a table of key summary points.

NSG 6430 Assignment Evidence-Based Research Review

NSG 6430 Assignment Evidence-Based Research Review

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NSG 6430 Assignment: Evidence-Based Research Review

American Family Physician is particularly interested in receiving clinical review articles that follow an evidence-based format. Clinical review articles, also known as updates, differ from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in important ways.1 Updates selectively review the medical literature while discussing a topic broadly. An example of such a topic is, “The diagnosis and treatment of myocardial ischemia.” Systematic reviews comprehensively examine the medical literature, seeking to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to diagnosis or treatment. Examples are many of the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration or BMJ’s Clinical Evidence compendium. Meta-analyses are a special type of systematic review. They use quantitative methods to analyze the literature and seek to answer a focused clinical question, using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. An example is, “Do beta blockers reduce mortality following myocardial infarction?”

The best clinical review articles base the discussion on existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and incorporate all relevant research findings about the management of a given disorder. Such evidence-based updates provide readers with powerful summaries and sound clinical guidance.

Name:  Assignment Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value.

The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

28 (28%) – 31 (31%)

The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value.

The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

25 (25%) – 27 (27%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values.

An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague.

The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

0 (0%) – 24 (24%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing.

An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing.

The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing.

Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it 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 is 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 (3%) – 3 (3%)

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%) – 2 (2%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was 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 (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100

Name:  Assignment Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.