You will be required to complete a critique of a Systematic Review that includes PRISMA. Find a published systematic review with PRISMA from within 5 to 10 years in a peer-reviewed journal of your choice. In a 3-5-page paper (does NOT include title page and reference page), answer the following questions based on the systematic review criteria of Polit and Beck (2017):
Please use the exact Headers below and Copy the Questions: This will be Recognized in the Turnitin Similarity Percentage
The Grading Rubric for this assignment is as follows:
The Problem – 3 points
Did the report clearly state the research problem and/or research questions? Is the scope of all the project appropriate? Were the search of appropriate databases and appropriate evaluation techniques used to address the clinical question?
Is the topic of the review important for nursing?
Were concepts, variables, or phenomena adequately defined?
Was the integration approach adequately described, and was the approach appropriate?
Research Strategy — 5 points
Did the report clearly describe criteria for selecting primary studies, and are those criteria reasonable?
Were the bibliographic databases used by the reviewers identified, and are they appropriate and comprehensive? Were key words identified, and are they exhaustive?
Did the reviewers use adequate supplementary efforts to identify relevant studies?
Was a PRISMA-type flowchart included to summarize the search strategy and results?
The Sample — 3 points
Were inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly articulated, and were they defensible?
Did the search strategy yield a strong and comprehensive sample of studies? Were strengths and limitations of the sample identified?
If an original report was lacking key information, did reviewers attempt to contact the original researchers for additional information or did the study have to be excluded?
If studies were excluded for reasons other than insufficient information, did the reviewers provide a rationale for the decision?
Quality Appraisal – 4 points
Did the reviewers appraise the quality of the primary studies? Did they use a defensible and well-defined set of criteria, or a respected quality appraisal scale?
Did two or more people do the appraisals, and was interrater agreement reported?
Was the appraisal information used in a well-defined and defensible manner in the selection of studies, or in the analysis of results?
Data Extraction—3 points
Was adequate information extracted about methodologic and administrative aspects of the study?
Was adequate information about the sample characteristic extracted?
Was sufficient information extracted about study findings?
Were steps taken to enhance the integrity of the data set (e.g. were two or more people used to extract and record information for analysis)?
Data Analysis (General) — 3 points to answer the following questions whether a quantitative or qualitative analysis
Did the reviewers explain their method of pooling and integrating the data?
Was the analysis of data thorough and credible?
Were tables, figures, and text used effectively to summarize findings?
Data Analysis if Systematic Review was Quantitative (Use of instruments and statistics) — 4 points
Was this study a meta-analysis where data was obtained and statistical analyses run or was it a systematic review of quantitative designed research studies?
If a meta-analysis was not performed, was there adequate justification for using a narrative integration method?
For meta-analysis, were appropriate procedures followed for computing effect size estimates for all relevant outcomes?
Was heterogeneity of effects adequately dealt with? Was the decision to use a random effects model or a fixed effects model sound? Were appropriate subgroup analyses undertaken or was the absence of subgroup analyses justified?
Or
Data Analysis if the Systematic Review was Qualitative (Use of interviews, focus groups, or observations) — 4 points
In a meta-synthesis, did the reviewers describe the techniques they used to compare the finding of each study, and did they explain the method for interpreting their data?
If a meta-summary was undertaken, did the abstracted findings seem appropriate and convincing?
In a meta-synthesis, did the synthesis achieve a fuller understanding of the phenomenon to advance knowledge? Do the interpretations seem well grounded? Was there a sufficient amount of data included to support the interpretations?
Use of Systematic Review Findings to Guide Evidence-Based Practice — 2 points
Discuss your Recommendations based on the Strength of the Systematic Review
Grammar, Spelling, Sentence Structure, and APA — 3 points
The Critique must be in a narrative format and have a scholarly flow, must follow strict APA guidelines.
