NURS 684 Discussion 9 Thread 2

1) Again review:Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Part III: The Process of Synthesis: Seeing Similarities and Differences across the Body of Evidence, AJN, 110(11), 43-51. AJN_07_Crit_Ananlsis_III_Nov_2010.pdf

2) Now read: Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F. & Stevens, D. (2015). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from detailed consensus process, BMJ Qual Saf, 0, 1-7. Ogrinc_BMJ_SQUIRE_2.0_2015.pdf

Look at Table 1: pages 2-3 and answer the following two (2) discussion points in your post.:

1) What is your opinion for the use of a systematic framework for reporting research? Do you feel this would make to easier to critically appraise research reporting? Why or why not? Do you see any limitation to this form of publication? Should this be required by the journals for acceptance? What do you think of the discussion of the SQUIRE guideline in the AJN article? Why has this not been adopted in the 6 years since that publication? All students must answer this question and post at least one comment to a classmate’s posting.

2) Choose two (2) listings in the table that interested you and describe the consequences of their use. Is there anything missing that you would like to see added? Why is this needed? Do you feel this heading is redundant and unnecessary? Explain. All students must answer this question and post at least one comment to a classmate’s posting.

NOTE: When I read and grade this posting I will be looking for diversity in the discussion choices from this table. If you are a late post-er you will need to work a little harder to identify table listings that have not yet been discussed. You will not receive credit for this question if your posting is not original.

NURS 684 Discussion 9 Thread 2