Rapid Critical Appraisal of a Literature Review

Rapid Critical Appraisal of a Literature Review

Project Title:  The Effectiveness of Clinically Indicated Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters

Date: July 3, 2020

PICOT Question:  How effective are clinically Indicated Replacement of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters.

Article citation (APA): Morrison, K., & Holt, K. E. (2015). The effectiveness of clinically indicated replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters: An evidence review with implications for clinical practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(4), 187-198. doi:10.1111/wvn.12102

Indicate the level of the study you are appraising: College

Recommendation for article inclusion in the body of evidence to answer your question:  The article analyzes the effectiveness of clinically indicated replacement of peripheral catheters. It explores various evidence on the effectiveness of catheters while referring to different sources of evidence, including studies by other authors. Since my question is on how to improve the use of catheters, the article is suitable for inclusion.

Overview

1. Purpose of the article: The purpose of the study is to determine whether replacing peripheral intravenous catheters only when clinically indicated compared to every 72–96 hrs. increases the patients’ risk for infection
2. Summary of article: The article seeks to answer the question of how the replacement of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters can help improve patient outcomes. Findings from the article reveal that replacing peripheral catheters is more effective in reducing infections.

Quality of the Study

Validity: Are the results of this study valid?

1. Was the literature review conducted in a systematic way? ☒Yes ☐No         ☐ Unknown           

Comments:  The literature review involves an analysis of various literary works. It follows a hierarchal order where literature are analyzed from general to specific. Literature that generally talks about the use of catheters are analyzed then followed by an analysis of literature specific to the topic.

2. Did the literature review address a focused clinical question?   

                                    ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

 The literature review address the question on the effectiveness of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters in reducing the risk of infections in patients.

3. Was the search for relevant literature detailed and exhaustive?

       ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

Comments: Literature explored are both current and relevant to the topic

4. Was the date range of the cited literature current? ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

• What date ranges were included? 2011to 2015
  • If older literature was included, why was it included? Older literature was included since it entailed relevant and vital content on the topic.

5. What were the level of the literature that were included?

                                                ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

• Meta-analysis: Yes
• Systematic review: Yes
• Randomized control trial: Yes
• Controlled clinical trial: Yes
• Cohort/case control: No
• Systematic review of descriptive study: Yes
• Systematic review of qualitative study: Yes
• Single descriptive study: No
• Single qualitative study: No
• Expert opinion: Generally, the literature review is comprehensive, detailed, and conclusive.

Comments: A randomized trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of the clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters. Both qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed.

6. Was criteria used to select articles for inclusion?  ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

Comments: Both inclusion and exclusion criteria were used in the selection of articles

7. Were populations in the included studies comparable and appropriate?

                                                                                               ☒Yes      ☐No    ☐ Unknown                                      

Comments: Population was selected randomly

8. Were the measurements of the interventions and outcomes in the included studies comparable and appropriate?                               ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

Comments: Measurements were valid and credible

9. Was there freedom from conflict of interest?                 

                                                                            ☒Yes      ☐No         ☐ Unknown

• Sponsors/funding agency
• Investigators

Comments: Independent sponsors and investigators were involved.

Reliability: Are these valid study results important?

10. Were the results of the literature reviewed summarized?

            ☐ Yes            ☐ No           ☐Unknown

Comments:  Summary of the results was presented at the beginning of the article

11. Were the results in the literature reviewed consistent across all the studies?

             ☐ Yes            ☒ No           ☐Unknown

          Comments: Some of the studies yielded different results, but their results were also involved in the study to make the results credible.

12. Were adverse events discusses?  ☒ Yes            ☐ No           ☐Unknown

Comments:  adverse events discussed include; the effect of prolonged and wrong catheter placement

13. Were recommendations made based on the literature review?

☒ Yes            ☐ No           ☐Unknown

Comments: Recommendations were made from a summary of the results from the review of the literature conducted.

Applicability/Generalizability: Can I apply these valid, important study results?

14. Can the results be applied to my population of interest? ☒Yes ☐No    ☐Unknown
    1. Is the treatment feasible in my care setting?                                             ☒Yes   ☐No
    2. Do the outcomes apply to my population of interest? ☒Yes   ☐No
    3. Are the likely benefits worth the potential harm and costs?             ☒Yes   ☐No
    4. Were the subjects/participants in this study, similar to my population of interest?

☒Yes   ☐No

1. Were all clinically important outcomes considered?                                   ☒Yes   ☐No

Comments: Results indicated that catheter replacement was effective in reducing the risk of infections

15. Will you use the study/article in your practice to make a difference in outcomes?

☒Yes  ☐No    ☐Unknown

1. If yes, why would you do this & how? The study will inform my future practice as a health professional. I will ensure catheters are replaced regularly.
2. If no, why would you not include the results to make a difference? Click here to enter text.

Strength of Study

Level of study:       ☐ I      ☐II      ☐III     ☐IV     ☒V      ☐VI     ☐VII

Quality of Study:     ☐High    ☒Medium   ☐Low

Strength = Level + Quality

What is the strength of this study?  The study involves both qualitative and quantitative data hence results from the study are more likely to be credible

What is your recommendation for article inclusion in the body of evidence to answer your question?

☒Include this article in the body of evidence (place article on evaluation and synthesis table)

☐Do NOT include this article in the body of evidence

Additional comments: The article is suitable for inclusion as it conducts thorough research on the topic of the effectiveness of clinically indicated peripheral intravenous catheters