RATING SYSTEM FOR THE LEVEL/HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE
LEVEL I: Evidence from an integrated literature review, systematic review or meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trails (RCTs), or evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on systematic reviews of RCTs.
· Review of research evidence related to a specific clinical question.
· Critically analyzes and synthesizes findings from multiple random control trials.
· Aim is to interpret and translate findings.
LEVEL II: Evidence obtained from at least one well-designated RCT. (experimental)
· Study subjects are randomly assigned to either a treatment or control group.
· May be:
· Blind: neither subject nor investigator knows which treatment the subject is receiving.
· Double-blind: neither subject nor investigator knows which treatment the subject is receiving.
· Non-blind: both subject and investigator know which treatment subject is receiving; used when it is felt that the knowledge of treatment is unimportant.
LEVEL III: Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. (quasi-experimental)
· Always includes manipulation of an independent variable
· Lacks either random assignment or control group
· Findings must be considered in light of threats to validity (particularly selection)
LEVEL IV: Evidence from well-designed case-control and cohort studies.
· No manipulation of the independent variable.
LEVEL V: Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies, correlational studies.
LEVEL VI: Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study.
· Explorative in nature, such as interviews, observations, or focus groups.
· Starting point for studies of questions for which little research currently exists.
· Sample sizes are usually small and study results are used to design stronger studies that are more objective and quantifiable.
· Describing differences in variables between or among groups.
· Describing relationships among variables. No attempt to understand causal relationship.
LEVEL VII: Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees.
QUALITY DEFINITIONS
(Quality is based on Critical Appraisal)
GOOD: A study meets all research design-specific criteria well
FAIR: A study does not meet (or it is not clear that it meets) at least one design-specific criterion but has no known “fatal flaws”
POOR: A study that has at least one design specific “fatal flaw: or an accumulation of lesser flaws.
References
Dearholt, S.L.; & Dang, D. (2012). John Hopkins nursing-evidence based practice: model and guidelines (2nd ed.). John Hopkins University, School of Nursing: Sigma Theta Tau
Fineout-Overholt, E and Melnyk, B.M. (2005). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: a guide to best practice. Philadephia:Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
