Yale New Haven Health Nursing Research and Practice Committee Non-Research Literature Appraisal Tool Article Number Author(s): Article Title: Journal: Year Published: Volume: Number: Pages Numbers: Trial of Evidence and Grading: Fill in after completing appraisal (see Appendix A and B) Level of Evidence (Circle one): I II III IV V Quality (Circle one): High Good Low Is this a reputable source of evidence? Yes No ⎕ ⎕ Appraisal Category (check Summary of Publication Appraisal category) Clinical Practice Guidelines: Write a brief summary with key points Were types of evidence used identified? ☐ yes ☐ ☐no Systematically developed Were appropriate stakeholders/disciplines involved in the recommendations from nationally development of recommendations? yes ☐ ☐no recognized experts based on Are groups/population to which recommendations apply research evidence or expert and do not apply clearly stated? yes consensus panel. ☐ ☐no Have potential biases been eliminated? yes ☐ ☐no Consensus/Position ☐ Were recommendations valid (reproducible search, expert Systematically Statement: consensus, independent review, current, and level of developed recommendations supporting evidence identified for each recommendation)? based on research and nationally yes ☐ ☐no recognized expert opinion that Were recommendations supported by evidence? guides members of a yes ☐ ☐no professional organization in decision-making for an issue of Are recommendations clear? ☐ yes ☐no concern. Write a brief summary with key points ☐ Literature Review: Summary of Is subject matter under review clearly stated? ☐ yes ☐no published literature without Is relevant, timely literature included (most sources within systematic appraisal of evidence last 5 years or seminal work)? ☐ yes ☐no quality or strength.
Yale New Haven Health Nursing Research and Practice Committee Non-Research Literature Appraisal Tool Article Number Author(s): Article Title: Journal: Year Published: Volume: Number: Pages Numbers: of Evidence and Grading: Fill in after completing appraisal (see Appendix A and B) Level of Evidence (Circle one): I II III IV V Quality (Circle one): High Good Low Is this a reputable source of evidence? Yes ⎕ No ⎕ Appraisal Category (check category) Summary of Publication Appraisal ☐ Clinical Practice Guidelines: Systematically developed recommendations from nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel. ☐ Consensus/Position Statement: Systematically developed recommendations based on research and nationally recognized expert opinion that guides members of a professional organization in decision-making for an issue of concern. Write a brief summary with key points Were types of evidence used identified? ☐ yes ☐no Were appropriate stakeholders/disciplines involved in the development of recommendations? ☐ yes ☐no Are groups/population to which recommendations apply and do not apply clearly stated? ☐ yes ☐no Have potential biases been eliminated? ☐ yes ☐no Were recommendations valid (reproducible search, expert consensus, independent review, current, and level of supporting evidence identified for each recommendation)? ☐ yes ☐no Were recommendations supported by evidence? ☐ yes ☐no Are recommendations clear? ☐ yes ☐no ☐ Literature Review: Summary of published literature without systematic appraisal of evidence quality or strength. Write a brief summary with key points Is subject matter under review clearly stated? ☐ yes ☐no Is relevant, timely literature included (most sources within last 5 years or seminal work)? ☐ yes ☐no Trial
non_research_appraisal_tool_1-6-17.docx