Methods, Levels of Evidence, Strength of Recommendations for Treatment Statements for Evidence-Based Report Cards

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikel Gray ◽  
Donna Bliss ◽  
Mary Lou Klem
Keyword(s):  
Report Cards ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
Evidence Strength

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 402-405
Author(s):  
Susan Givens Bell
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Appraisal Process ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
The Third

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the first in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, defines and provides examples of the levels of evidence and tools to begin the appraisal process using a rapid critical appraisal technique.

scholarly journals An Evaluation of the Five Most Used Evidence Based Bedside Information Tools in Canadian Health Libraries

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Farrell
Keyword(s):  
Electronic Mail ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Resource Assessment ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
Information Tools ◽  
Canadian Health ◽  
Clinical Questions

Objective – This project sought to identify the five most used evidence based bedside information tools used in Canadian health libraries, to examine librarians’ attitudes towards these tools, and to test the comprehensiveness of the tools. Methods – The author developed a definition of evidence based bedside information tools and a list of resources that fit this definition. Participants were respondents to a survey distributed via the CANMEDLIB electronic mail list. The survey sought to identify information from library staff regarding the most frequently used evidence based bedside information tools. Clinical questions were used to measure the comprehensiveness of each resource and the levels of evidence they provided to each question. Results – Survey respondents reported that the five most used evidence based bedside information tools in their libraries were UpToDate, BMJ Clinical Evidence, First Consult, Bandolier and ACP Pier. Librarians were generally satisfied with the ease of use, efficiency and informative nature of these resources. The resource assessment determined that not all of these tools are comprehensive in terms of their ability to answer clinical questions or with regard to the inclusion of levels of evidence. UpToDate was able to provide information for the greatest number of clinical questions, but it provided a level of evidence only seven percent of the time. ACP Pier was able to provide information on only 50% of the clinical questions, but it provided levels of evidence for all of these. Conclusion – UpToDate and BMJ Clinical Evidence were both rated as easy to use and informative. However, neither product generally includes levels of evidence, so it would be prudent for the practitioner to critically appraise information from these sources before using it in a patient care setting. ACP Pier eliminates the critical appraisal stage, thus reducing the time it takes to go from forming a clinical question to implementing the answer, but survey respondents did not rate it as high in terms of usability. There remains a need for user-friendly, comprehensive resources that provide evidence summaries relying on levels of evidence to support their conclusions.

Evidence-Based Strategies for the Prevention of Chronic Post–Intensive Care and Acute Care–Related Pain

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-334
Author(s):  
Melanie Bérubé
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Mechanisms Of Action ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Preventive Interventions ◽  
Levels Of Evidence

Chronic pain is prevalent in intensive care survivors and in patients who require acute care treatments. Many adverse consequences have been associated with chronic post-intensive care and acute care-related pain. Hence, interest in interventions to prevent these pain disorders has grown. To improve the understanding of the mechanisms of action of these interventions and their potential impacts, this article outlines the pathophysiology involved in the transition from acute to chronic pain, the epidemiology and consequences of chronic post-intensive care and acute care- related pain, and risk factors for the development of chronic pain. Pharmacological, nonpharmacological, and multimodal preventive interventions specific to the targeted populations and their levels of evidence are presented. Nursing implications for preventing chronic pain in patients receiving critical and acute care are also discussed.

scholarly journals Canadian Child Safety Report Card: a comparison of injury prevention practices across provinces

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 252-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liraz Fridman ◽  
Jessica L Fraser-Thomas ◽  
Ian Pike ◽  
Alison K Macpherson
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Injury Prevention ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Hospitalisation Rate ◽  
Report Cards ◽  
Child Safety ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Prevention Policies ◽  
Over Time

BackgroundInjury prevention report cards that raise awareness about the preventability of childhood injuries have been published by the European Child Safety Alliance and the WHO. These report cards highlight the variance in injury prevention practices around the world. Policymakers and stakeholders have identified research evidence as an important enabler to the enactment of injury legislation. In Canada, there is currently no childhood injury report card that ranks provinces on injury rates or evidence-based prevention policies.MethodsThree key measures, with five metrics, were used to compare provinces on childhood injury prevention rates and strategies, including morbidity, mortality and policy indicators over time (2006–2012). Nine provinces were ranked on five metrics: (1) population-based hospitalisation rate/100 000; (2) per cent change in hospitalisation rate/100 000; (3) population-based mortality rate/100 000; (4) per cent change in mortality rate/100 000; (5) evidence-based policy assessment.ResultsOf the nine provinces analysed, British Columbia ranked highest in Canada and Saskatchewan lowest. British Columbia had a morbidity and mortality rate that was close to the Canadian average and decreased over the study period. British Columbia also had a number of injury prevention policies and legislation in place that followed best practice guidelines. Saskatchewan had a higher rate of injury hospitalisation and death; however, Saskatchewan’s rate decreased over time. Saskatchewan had a number of prevention policies in place but had not enacted bicycle helmet legislation.ConclusionsFuture preventative efforts should focus on harmonising policies across all provinces in Canada that reflect evidence-based best practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document