Evaluation of Evidence for Catheter-Associated UTI

This discussion post examines the evaluation of evidence in healthcare research, focusing on the best practices for reducing the incidence of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs). The post discusses the different types of evidence, including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series, and how to evaluate the reliability of the sources. It also explores the importance of primary and secondary sources, peer-reviewed articles, and meta-analyses in promoting future research. The author explains the challenges of performing a literature search, including the difficulties in finding relevant information, and describes the search engines and search terms used. The post highlights what went well and what were the challenges faced during the search, providing insights into the time required to complete the search. Finally, the post provides recommendations for improving the search process, emphasizing the importance of carefully selecting keywords and refining search strategies.

Running head: RESPONSE POST
Response Post
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Authors note:

1RESPONSE POST
The valuation of the pieces of evidence is significant to an assassin in the merit of the
other arguments in the development of the convincing agreement in their own. The types of the
research pieces of evidence are the systematic reviews of the randomized controlled trials, the
randomized and the controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, ideas, editorials, opinions and
case report. The different pieces of evidence from the different types of study are evaluated by
different categories which include the literature and the quality of the type of pieces of evidence.
The primary sources raw information and the first-hand evidence and the secondary
sources provide the second-hand information and the commentary for the researches, which
includes the journal articles, academic books as well as reviews (Kwon, Lee & Shin, 2014). The
peer reviews involve the subjecting of the author's scholarly work and the research to the
scrutiny of other experts in the same field of validity and evaluation of the publication. This
helps the researcher measure the authenticity of the work. The meta-analysis provides a
principled method for the distilling of the authenticity of the generalization of the studies on a
particular study which delivers a quantitive and objective of future research (DerSimonian &
Laird, 2015).
The challenge in the literature review is not able to concentrate on the details, searching
in google does not show relevant results; sorting the information and managing and the proper
balancing and proper formatting. The search engine users are google scholar, science.gove, and
semantic scholar. The term used was catheter-associated with UTI infection, UTI infection, and
best practices for UTI infection. The explanation for the catharade infection was easily found.
However, the particular case studies regarding the same were difficult to found. There were
nearly four days which went to complete the search. The recommendation is typing the
keywords.

2RESPONSE POST

3RESPONSE POST
References
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (2015). Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemporary
clinical trials, 45, 139-145.
Kwon, O., Lee, N., & Shin, B. (2014). Data quality management, data usage experience and
acquisition intention of big data analytics. International journal of information
management, 34(3), 387-394.