Evidence-based project, part 2: advanced levels of clinical inquiry

Due Jul 2 by 10:59pm Points 100 Submitting a text entry box or a file upload
Attempts 0 Allowed Attempts 2

Start Assignment

Back to Module at a Glance
(https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/67174/modules/items/1754887)

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.

EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT, PART 2:
ADVANCED LEVELS OF CLINICAL INQUIRY AND
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES (https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/67174/modules/items/1754898)

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 5
Submit Part 2 of your Evidence-Based Project.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check
your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

1. To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as MD3Assgn+last
name+first initial

2. Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
3. Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the
Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.
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 2: 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 relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level
related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on
your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.
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.

NURS_6052_Module03_Week05_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

80 pts

5 pts

Part 2: 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. ·
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.

80 to >71.0 pts
Excellent

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
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-

71 to >63.0 pts
Good

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
includes relevant
examples that
support the
research
presented.

63 to >55.0 pts
Fair

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
includes
inaccurate or
vague examples
to support the
research
presented.

55 to >0 pts
Poor

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
includes
inaccurate
and vague
examples to
support the
research
presented or
is missing.

Resource Synthesis 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent

4 to >3.0 pts
Good

3 to >2.0 pts
Fair

2 to >0 pts
Poor

Criteria Ratings Pts

5 pts

5 pts

specific resources
that fully support
the presentation.

Using proper in-
text citations, the
presentation
clearly and
accurately
provides at least
four peer-
reviewed
systematic review
type articles
selected,
describes the
levels of evidence
in each of the four
articles selected,
including a
thorough and
detailed
explanation of the
strengths of using
systematic
reviews for
clinical research.

Using proper in-
text citations,
the presentation
accurately
provides at least
four systematic
review type
peer-reviewed
articles selected
including
adequate
explanation of
the levels of
evidence, the
strengths of
using a
systematic
review for

Using proper in-
text citations, the
presentation
provides a vague
or inaccurate
synthesis or
outside resources
related to the
systematic review
type peer-
reviewed articles
selected. The
response
minimally explains
the levels of
evidence and the
strengths of using
a systematic
review and/or
minimally
integrates
resources that
may support the
presentation.

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.

Resource
FormattingAppropriate
peer-reviewed articles
are included and
citations use APA format.

5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Presentation
includes 4 or
more peer-
reviewed articles
selected using
systematic
reviews for
clinical research.
…Citations use
correct APA
format with no
errors.

4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Presentation
includes 3 peer-
reviewed articles
selected using
systematic
reviews for
clinical research.
…Citations use
correct APA
format with few
(1-2) errors.

3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Presentation
includes 2 peer-
reviewed articles
selected using
systematic
reviews for
clinical research.
…Citations
contain several
(3-4) APA format
errors.

2 to >0 pts
Poor
Presentation
includes 1 or
no resources.
… Citations
contain many
>5 APA format
errors.

PowerPoint
Presentation:The
presentation is
professional; images are
appropriately attributed;
images are clear. The
presentation text is
readable. Presentation
flows well and is
presented in a logical
order.

5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
The
presentation is
professional;
images are
appropriately
attributed;
images are
clear. The
presentation
text is readable.
Presentation
flows well and is

4 to >3.0 pts
Good
Eighty percent
of the
presentation is
professional;
images are
appropriately
attributed;
images are
clear. The
presentation text
is readable.
Presentation

3 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Sixty to seventy
nine percent of
the presentation
follows these
guidelines:
presentation is
professional;
images are
appropriately
attributed;
images are clear.
The presentation

2 to >0 pts
Poor
Less than sixty
percent of the
presentation
follows these
guidelines:
presentation is
professional;
images are
appropriately
attributed;
images are clear.
The presentation

Total Points: 100

Criteria Ratings Pts

5 pts

presented in a
logical order.

flows well and is
presented in a
logical order.

text is readable.
Presentation
flows well and is
presented in a
logical order.

text is readable.
Presentation
flows well and is
presented in a
logical order.

Written Expression and
Formatting—English
Writing
Standards:Correct
grammar, mechanics,
and proper punctuation.

5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent

Uses correct
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
with no errors.

4 to >3.0 pts
Good

Contains a few
(one or two)
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
errors.

3 to >2.0 pts
Fair

Contains
several (three
or four)
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
errors.

2 to >0 pts
Poor

Contains many (five
or more) grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation errors
that interfere with
the reader’s
understanding.