Evaluating a Systematic Review on CLABSI Prevention
Added on 2020-05-16
4 Pages909 Words115 Views
|
|
|
Article Appraisal Systematic Review with Narrative SynthesisAPA Formatted Citation:Blot, K., Bergs, J., Vogelaers, D., Blot, S., & Vandijck, D. (2014). Prevention of central line–associated bloodstream infections through quality improvement interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 59(1), 96-105.Synopsis 1.What organizations or persons produced the systematic review (SR)?Trish M. Perl, Section Editor, Koen Blot, Jochen Bergs,Dirk Vogelaers, Stijn Blot,and Dominique Vandijck-Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University-General Internal Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent-Health Economics and Patient Safety, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium-Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia2.How many persons were involved in conducting the review?oSix persons 3.What topic or question did the SR address?oExamination of whether quality improvement of interventions reduces rates of central line associated bloodstream infections among adults in Intensive Care units4.How were potential research reports identified?oMedline search engine was used from the year 1995-June 2012 using search terminologies, and extra studies were identified from references lists and using Ovid and Science database5.What determined if a study was included in the analysis?Reproduced with permission from: Brown, S. J. (2018). Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection(4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 1
oStudies used followed interrupted time series, controlled , non controlled or randomized control trial studies which complied with Cochrane Effective Practiceand Organization of care group.6.How many studies were included in the review?o43 studies were included in the review 7.What research designs were used in the studies?oRandomized controlled study designs were used8.What were the consistent and important across-study’s conclusions?o41 studies showed decreased infection rates at (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, .33–.46]; P< .001). Thus across many studies in the review shows that quality improvement interventions of central line bloodstream infections among patients. Credibility YesNoNotClearWas the topic clearly defined? Yes Was the search for studies and other evidence comprehensive and unbiased? Yes Was the screening of citations for Inclusion based on explicit criteria? Yes *Were the included studies assessed for quality?Yes Were the design characteristics and findings of the included studies displayed or discussed in sufficient detail? Yes *Was there a true integration (i.e., synthesis) of the findings- notmerely reporting of findings from each study individually? Yes *Did the reviewers explore why differences in findings might have occurred? Yes Did the reviewers distinguish between conclusions based on consistent findings from several good studies and those based on inferior evidence (number or quality)? Yes Which conclusions were supported by consistent findings from two or more good or high-qualitystudies? List-From the reviews, half of the trials showed implementation of health infection preventionchecklist compliance thus reducing the infection rates.-28 studies in the study further reported utilization of devices before and after cauterization process, compliance preventions and increased duration of catherization which marked reduction of incidence levels. Reproduced with permission from: Brown, S. J. (2018). Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection(4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 2
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents