In patients with foot ulcers, is negative pressure wound therapy and autologous heterogeneous skin constructs compared with standard wound care, effective in increasing rates wound closure
N316 EBP Paper Part 1
Helpful Hints
Paper Basics
This is a formal paper. Follow APA 7 format.
Cover page
Should list each team member in alphabetical order.
References
Cited properly within the paper and on reference list
Full sentences, appropriate grammar & spelling
No contractions
Acronyms spelled out first time
Evidence Based Practice (EBP)
Hypertension (HTN)
APA Resources
APA 7 Publication Manual (Student Guidance)
Tips for Writing in APA 7 under Assignments
APA website:
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines
Guidelines lets you query specific topics
Instructional Aids Handouts and Guides
P
3
Syllabus, B-2 (page 10)
| Grading Criteria |
Points |
| Introduction contains a topic sentence and wrap-up sentence | 1.0 |
| Introduction presents a logical flow of data and sound reasoning that leads to the clinical question | 1.0 |
| Introduction shows a clear connection between nursing (or interprofessional practice) and the clinical question | 1.0 |
| Introduction cites at least two sources from appropriate (i.e., authoritative and/or peer-reviewed) literature to support claims (other than the 2 articles you are evaluating) | 0.5 |
| All four PICO components are clearly identified | 0.5 |
| Databases, search terms, Boolean operators and delimiters are identified | 0.5 |
| Meets good writing criteria according to the American Psychological Association’s Manual (7th Ed.) – e.g., full sentences, no contractions, acronyms defined first use, no grammatical errors or typos, proper source citation | 0.5 |
| Total points | 5.0 |
Paper will be ~ 4 paragraphs of content.
First 1 to 2 paragraphs make a case for this project (significance of the clinical problem). Why does this matter to nurses? Why is this important to do?
Prevalence, outcomes, current state/ gaps in knowledge
Use 2 additional references (NOT your primary articles) to support. Systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, CDC, AHRQ, WHO data OK here.
Cite within the paper and on reference list.
Remington’s introduction excellent example
Example of Significance/Background
6
Search Strategy
~ 1 to 2 paragraphs
Include:
Database(s) that were searched (at least 2 including CINAHL)
Search t
N316 EBP Paper Part 2
Helpful Hints
EBP Paper 2: Addendum B-3, pg. 11 Syllabus
Analysis of Research Articles
Encompasses material covered in class to date, through descriptive data (Module 9).
Rubric:
| Grading Criteria | Points |
| Table 1 is formatted correctly and content is legible | 0.5 |
| Table 1 contains correct and required information | 3.0 |
| Narrative discusses at least two key similarities between articles | 0.5 |
| Narrative discusses at least two key differences between articles | 0.5 |
| Meets good writing criteria according to the American Psychological Association’s Manual (7th Ed.) – e.g., full sentences, no contractions, acronyms defined first use, no grammatical errors or typos, proper source citation | 0.5 |
| Total points | 5.0 |
General Information
Still an APA paper.
Needs cover page, references.
In-text references and reference list
Minimum references would be 2 articles used
Do not include EBP Part 1. (Paper 3 will compile all 3 parts together.)
Narrative sections must be written in scholarly style following APA standards.
See APA Resources in Bb
Table 1
Table 1 Formatting
Do not break words in the middle of the word
Information must be summarized from the article
Do not copy and paste from the article
Refer to chapter 3
Information must be included in table format. Cannot just submit information written out in paragraph format or bullet points.
Table 1 Format Example, p 11 Syllabus
| Source (1st author, year) | ||
| Objective/ Purpose (describe fully) | ||
| Selected outcome variable (DV) (this is the O from your PICO; do not include other outcomes that the researchers investigated) | ||
| Design (name the design and briefly describe the length of the study – how long could participants expect to be involved with study activities?) | ||
| Setting (describe in as much detail as you can) & Sample (sampling method & include short description of demographics of the final sample and whether a power analysis was conducted) | ||
| Assigned intervention (IV) (you will need to add details here – briefly describe the intervention AND control conditions, if applicable) | ||
| Data Collection Methods, Tools/ Instruments (briefly describe the timing of data collection – how often and when were data collected; name the method of da
N316 EBP Paper Part 3 General Information APA 7 Publication Manual (Student Guidance) JHNEBP Model should be included in the references Combine EBP Papers one (1) and two(2), including corrections, with EBP Paper 3. See Addendum B-4, page 12 of the Syllabus for additional information Table 2 Content: Addendum B-4, page 13 Use the template for Table 2. List at least (2) strengths and (2) weakness in the study design, sample or methods for each study. Not everything is a strength or weakness, see Slide #7 In the first column labeled “Source” include only the first author and year (i.e., Smith, 2020). In the last column “JHNEBP Score”, list both the level of evidence (rating) and the grade (quality) Table 2 Content: Addendum B-5, page 14 of 19 Use the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model in Addendum B-5 to rate the research design (Level) and grade the quality of the evidence. Rate the level of evidence I-V based on the type of research design. LEVELS I: Evidence from experimental study, RCT, or meta-analysis of RCTs II: Evidence from quasi experimental study III: Evidence obtained from a non-experimental study, qualitative study or meta-synthesis (qualitative study synthesis) IV: Opinion of nationally recognized experts based on research evidence or expert consensus panel (systematic review, clinical practice guidelines) V: Opinion of individual expert based on non-research evidence. (Includes case studies; literature review; organizational experience e.g., quality improvement and financial data; clinical expertise, or personal experience) Table 2 Content: Addendum B-5, page 14 of 19 Use the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model in Addendum B-5 to rate the research design (Level) and grade the quality of the evidence. Grade the quality of evidence A – High, B – Good, C – Low/major flaw based on the criteria. Consistent, generalizable results: Are the study findings consistent with other studies on the topic (see Discussion), and are the results generalizable to people with the same issue but different characteristics? Sufficient sample: Is the sample size sufficient? If so, how do you know? Was a power analysis used? Was the sample size based on previous research? Adequate control: Was the environment controlled, was their blinding, were the groups similar, were researchers and assistants trained on administering the intervention? Definitive conclusions: If adequate control, with strong study design and statistical analysis, and the intervention was administered corre O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E A multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial David G. Armstrong1 | Dennis P. Orgill2 | Robert Galiano3 | Paul M. Glat4 | Lawrence Didomenico5 | Alexander Reyzelman6 | Robert Snyder7 | William W. Li8 | Marissa Carter9 | Charles M. Zelen10 1Department of Surgery, University of Correspondence Funding information Abstract We desired to carefully evaluate a novel autologous heterogeneous skin con- struct in a prospective randomised clinical trial comparing this to a standard- of-care treatment in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). This study reports the interim analysis after the first half of the subjects have been analysed. Fifty patients (25 per group) with Wagner 1 ulcers were enrolled at 13 wound centres in the United States. Twenty-three subjects underwent the autologous heterogeneous skin construct harvest and application procedure once; two subjects required two applications due to loss of the first application. The primary endpoint was the proportion of wounds closed at 12 weeks. There were significantly more wounds closed in the treatment group (18/25; 72%) vs controls (8/25; 32%) at 12 weeks. The treatment group achieved significantly greater percent area reduction compared to the control group at every prespecified timepoint of 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks. Thirty-eight adverse events occurred in 11 subjects (44%) in the treatment group vs 48 in 14 controls (56%), 6 of which required study removal. In the treatment group, there were no serious adverse events related to the index ulcer. Two adverse events (index 1Seidel D, et al. BMJ Open 2020;10:e026345. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026345 Open access Negative pressure wound therapy Dörthe Seidel ,1 Martin Storck,2 Holger Lawall,3,4 Gernold Wozniak,5 To cite: Seidel D, Storck M, ► Prepublication history and Received 28 August 2018 For numbered affiliations see Correspondence to Original research © Author(s) (or their AbstrACt 
Why work with us?Authenticity: All of our papers are authentic, as each paper of ours is composed according to your unique requirements. Confidentiality: We value you data. Our company is extremely efficient in guarding the privacy of our clients. 100% Money Back Guarantee: In the event you cancel your order, you get your money back as soon as possible, we give a 100% refund. 24/7 Support: Our team members are available via email, live chat, and phone. Revision Policy: You can apply for a revision if you think your paper could be better. In this case, your paper will be revised either by the specialist assigned to you or by another writer.How the Platform Works
|