Critical Appraisal Tools and Reporting Guidelines for Evidence‐Based Practice

Buccheri, Robin; Sharifi, Claire

doi:10.1111/wvn.12258

Cited by 95 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies published to date have been of high quality, as evaluated by the CASP tool (Buccheri & Sharifi, 2017). However, a large number of them did not report the characteristics regarding the analgosedation protocols and data regarding the cognitive status of patients, which can be significant given the impact of sedative exposure on psychological and physiological outcomes (Hetland, Guttormson, Tracy, & Chlan, 2018; Strom et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta‐synthesis and meta‐summary

Danielis

Povoli

Mattiussi

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives To synthesise the evidence reported in qualitative studies concerning the lived experiences of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Background Critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU have been reported to suffer from severe physical and emotional responses such as hopelessness, anxiety, high levels of frustration and stress. Recent improvements in the field of mechanical ventilation and sedative medications as experienced by patients that can inform nursing care have not been summarised to date. Design A systematic review of qualitative studies followed by a meta‐synthesis and a meta‐summary was performed. Methods Four electronic databases were searched by two authors in June 2019. A total of nine studies were included and evaluated based on their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Results A total of 24 codes emerged from the abstraction process, which were categorised into 11 categories and four themes: (a) “The effect of the intense stress on the body's systems,” (b) “The induced negative emotional situations,” (c) “The feeling of being cared for in a hospital setting” and (d) “The perceived support from the family and loved ones.” Furthermore, the most frequent codes across studies were “Being afraid,” “Feeling supervised,” “Feeling comforted,” “Failing to communicate,” and “Experiencing difficulties in breathing,” with an intensity of 66.6%. Conclusion Patients receiving mechanical ventilation have expressed a general sense of vulnerability, of which critical care nurses need to be aware. Relevance to clinical practice Findings suggest the need for improvements at the nursing, unit, educational and policy levels; furthermore, more research is also required at the international levels given the current trends towards no sedation protocols for the management of ICU patients: listening to their experiences becomes imperative, in order to ensure an awake, comfortable and ventilator‐tolerant patient.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta‐synthesis and meta‐summary

Danielis

Povoli

Mattiussi

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critical appraisal and RoB assessment of clinical studies are important components of evidence-based medicine. They allow the determination, in an objective manner, of the weight of a trial's findings (Buccheri and Sharifi, 2017). Numerous tools have been developed for these purposes, which are mostly designed for authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses or best practice guidelines but can be useful when assessing the quality of trials that have been published without the use of a reporting guideline such as CONSORT 2010.…”

Section: Critical Appraisal and Rob Assessment Of Published Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria to Qualify Microorganisms as “Probiotic” in Foods and Dietary Supplements

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Still relevant after 19 years, the FAO/WHO definition of probiotics can be translated into four simple and pragmatic criteria allowing one to conclude if specific strains of microorganisms qualify as a probiotic for use in foods and dietary supplements. Probiotic strains must be (i) sufficiently characterized; (ii) safe for the intended use; (iii) supported by at least one positive human clinical trial conducted according to generally accepted scientific standards or as per recommendations and provisions of local/national authorities when applicable; and (iv) alive in the product at an efficacious dose throughout shelf life. We provide clarity and detail how each of these four criteria can be assessed. The wide adoption of these criteria is necessary to ensure the proper use of the word probiotic in scientific publications, on product labels, and in communications with regulators and the general public.

show abstract

“…While tools for the critical appraisal of the methodological study quality help to identify and understand the strengths and weaknesses of a study, reporting guidelines define a minimum amount of information necessary to ensure a clear and transparent process in conducting the study. 16 Furthermore, relevant SRs had to include studies of (national) healthcare settings with a neonatal mortality <5/1000 births according to the child mortality report of 2017 to be able to analyse a comparable study population. 15…”

Section: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of regionalisation and case-volume on neonatal and perinatal mortality: an umbrella review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis umbrella review summarises and critically appraises the evidence on the effects of regulated or high-volume perinatal care on outcome among very low birth weight/very preterm infants born in countries with neonatal mortality <5/1000 births.Intervention/expositionPerinatal regionalisation, centralisation, case-volume.Primary outcomesDeath.Secondary outcomesDisability, discomfort, disease, dissatisfaction.MethodsOn 29 November 2019 a systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed and supplemented by hand search. Relevant systematic reviews (SRs) were critically appraised with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2.ResultsThe literature search revealed 508 hits and three SRs were included. Effects of perinatal regionalisation were assessed in three (34 studies) and case-volume in one SR (6 studies). Centralisation has not been evaluated. The included SRs reported effects on ‘death’ (eg, neonatal), ‘disability’ (eg, mental status), ‘discomfort’ (eg, maternal sensitivity) and ‘disease’ (eg, intraventricular haemorrhages). ‘Dissatisfactions’ were not reported. The critical appraisal showed a heterogeneous quality ranging from moderate to critically low. A pooled effect estimate was reported once and showed a significant favour of perinatal regionalisation in terms of neonatal mortality (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33–1.92). The qualitative evidence synthesis of the two SRs without pooled estimate suggests superiority of perinatal regionalisation in terms of different mortality and non-mortality outcomes. In one SR, contradictory results of lower neonatal mortality rates were reported in hospitals with higher birth volumes.ConclusionsRegionalised perinatal care seems to be a crucial care strategy to improve the survival of very low birth weight and preterm births. To overcome the low and critically low methodological quality and to consider additional clinical and patient-reported results that were not addressed by the SRs included, we recommend an updated SR. In the long term, an international, uniformly conceived and defined perinatal database could help to provide evidence-based recommendations on optimal strategies to regionalise perinatal care.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018094835.

show abstract

Critical Appraisal Tools and Reporting Guidelines for Evidence‐Based Practice

Cited by 95 publications

References 39 publications

Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta‐synthesis and meta‐summary

Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta‐synthesis and meta‐summary

Criteria to Qualify Microorganisms as “Probiotic” in Foods and Dietary Supplements

Impact of regionalisation and case-volume on neonatal and perinatal mortality: an umbrella review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About