Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

 

Matrix Worksheet

Evidence-based practice (EBP) uses clinical inquiry to acquire evidence-based answers to improve practice. In this matrix worksheet, I will compare the various research articles that I selected from a literature search following a clinical inquiry. My clinical issue of interest was gastrointestinal upset after the use of antibiotics and other acute disorders. Antibiotics especially the broad-spectrum ones kill several types of bacteria in the gut and the system. This can lead to eradication or reduction in the normal flora of the gastrointestinal tract. The reduction of this natural source of defense in the gut can lead to the proliferation and virulence of pathogenic bacteria. Probiotics are exogenous regimens either containing commensals or their substrates that maintain the normal flora in the body (Wang et al., 2020). This clinical inquiry aims at assessing the benefit of prophylactic administration of probiotic foods to prevent gastrointestinal effects of antibiotics used on the gut such as gastrointestinal upset. My PICOT question stated: “Among patients with gastrointestinal retiled to microbial infections (P), does the use of probiotic foods (I) confer health benefits in improving their health (O) after 3 months (T)?” Several sources were searched and the following four articles were sued to provide evidence-based answers to the clinical questions.

Full citation of the selected article	Article #1	Article #2	Article #3	Article #4
	Skrzydło-Radomańska, B., Prozorow-Król, B., Cichoż-Lach, H., Majsiak, E., Bierła, J. B., Kanarek, E., Sowińska, A., & Cukrowska, B. (2021). The effectiveness and safety of multi-strain probiotic preparation in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled study. Nutrients, 13(3), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030756	Hibberd, A. A., Yde, C. C., Ziegler, M. L., Honoré, A. H., Saarinen, M. T., Lahtinen, S., Stahl, B., Jensen, H. M., & Stenman, L. K. (2019). Probiotic or synbiotic alters the gut microbiota and metabolism in a randomized controlled trial of weight management in overweight adults. Beneficial Microbes, 10(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2018.0028	Rui, X., & Ma, S.-X. (2020). A retrospective study of probiotics for the treatment of children with antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Medicine, 99(23), e20631. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020631	Arnold, L. E., Luna, R. A., Williams, K., Chan, J., Parker, R. A., Wu, Q., Hollway, J. A., Jeffs, A., Lu, F., Coury, D. L., Hayes, C., & Savidge, T. (2019). Probiotics for gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life in autism: A placebo-controlled pilot trial. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 29(9), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2018.0156
Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest)	This article addresses the use of probiotics and their efficacies and effectiveness. It is addressed by PICOT intervention and outcomes at the same time.	This article meets my timeline criterion for article selection and addresses my intervention and outcomes. This article was more concerned with the mechanism that I would use to explain the clinical benefits of probiotic use.	This article addresses my population/problem, intervention, and outcomes. Therefore, I selected it because of its features and date of publications – less than 5 years old	This study was published in the last five years and was relevant to my clinical inquiry. The findings are therefore current and reliable. The uniqueness of the study population also made influenced the selection of this article
Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article	The study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of multi-strain probiotics in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome	This study aims to establish whether the clinical benefits associated with probiotic use are associable with gut microbiota change	This study aimed to explore the safety and benefits of the probiotics among children who had antibiotic-induced diarrhea	The authors aimed at exploring the impact of probiotic mixture on the impact of quality of life of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Gastrointestinal symptoms including diarrhea were some of the parameters for evaluation
Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.	This was a quantitative study that adopted a randomized control trial design. Placebo and double-blinding were also used. the intervention group received a multi-strain while the c0ntrol group received a placebo. At the study end, the symptom severity was assessed using a scale system.	This was a quantitative study with a randomized control trial design. The participants were randomly assigned into four groups receiving three different strains of probiotics and one placebo. Double blinding was done and outcomes in microbiota presence in blood and fecal samples were analyzed to infer gut barrier function	This was a quantitative study that adopted a retrospective case-control design. Thirty-six children of the 76 children who were enrolled in the study received additional probiotics to their treatment regiment while the other 40 did not.  Duration of diarrhea among other outcomes was evaluated after seven days.	This is a quantitative study with a pilot control trial design. Thirteen children 92-13 years) were enrolled and assigned into the intervention and placebo groups. Symptom outcomes were recorded at baseline and after every 3 weekly washouts up to the 19th week.
A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.	This study is an RCT thus the high level of evidence (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). The authors are experts in microbiology and other related medical fields thus reliable findings.	This study is a high level of evidence study that used four groups to compare outcomes. The study was ethically approved and the methodology is reliable.	This study had a control group that improved the strength of comparison in this retrospective study. a universal tool such as the British Stool scale was used to improve the reliability of the findings.	The use of the control group gave this study more strength. It was also reliable because of the credibility of the authors and the database source
General Notes/Comments	The study was appropriate for addressing my clinical inquiry due to its relevance to the research question	Another high level of evidence study fit for understanding the intervention in my clinical inquiry.	This was a lower-level evidence study than the one analyzed before but meets most of the components of my clinical inquiry	A unique population would give my appraisal findings good generalizability and applicability across the human life span

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Conclusion

The use of probiotics is not a new concept. However, as health research advances new strains are introduced in the commercial probiotics. This begs the need to ascertain their benefits through evidence-based practice. This matrix comparison analyzed the methodologies of four articles obtained through a literature search using PICOT clinical inquiry. Two studies were randomized control trials, one was a retrospective case-control study, and the other was a pilot control trial study. All studies were quantitative.

References

Arnold, L. E., Luna, R. A., Williams, K., Chan, J., Parker, R. A., Wu, Q., Hollway, J. A., Jeffs, A., Lu, F., Coury, D. L., Hayes, C., & Savidge, T. (2019). Probiotics for gastrointestinal symptoms and quality of life in autism: A placebo-controlled pilot trial. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 29(9), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1089/cap.2018.0156

Hibberd, A. A., Yde, C. C., Ziegler, M. L., Honoré, A. H., Saarinen, M. T., Lahtinen, S., Stahl, B., Jensen, H. M., & Stenman, L. K. (2019). Probiotic or synbiotic alters the gut microbiota and metabolism in a randomized controlled trial of weight management in overweight adults. Beneficial Microbes, 10(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2018.0028

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Rui, X., & Ma, S.-X. (2020). A retrospective study of probiotics for the treatment of children with antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Medicine, 99(23), e20631. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000020631

Skrzydło-Radomańska, B., Prozorow-Król, B., Cichoż-Lach, H., Majsiak, E., Bierła, J. B., Kanarek, E., Sowińska, A., & Cukrowska, B. (2021). The effectiveness and safety of multi-strain probiotic preparation in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled study. Nutrients, 13(3), 756. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13030756

Wang, Y., Jiang, Y., Deng, Y., Yi, C., Wang, Y., Ding, M., Liu, J., Jin, X., Shen, L., He, Y., Wu, X., Chen, X., Sun, C., Zheng, M., Zhang, R., Ye, H., An, H., & Wong, A. (2020). Probiotic supplements: Hope or hype? Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, 160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00160

Please be mindful of plagiarism and APA format, I have included the rubric as directed and a Template. Please use my course resources as one of my references as instructed. Please use the template. Thank you.

Learning Resources
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Hoare, Z., & Hoe, J. (2013). Understanding quantitative research: Part 2. Nursing Standard, 27(18), 48–55. doi:10.7748/ns2013.01.27.18.48.c9488

Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing Standard, 27(15), 52–57. doi:10.7748/ns2012.12.27.15.52.c9485

Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Evaluating resources: Primary & secondary sources. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/sources

Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean

Walden University Library. (n.d.-g). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Introduction to keyword searching. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics

Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Quick Answers: What are filtered and unfiltered resources in nursing? Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/73299

Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word Document)

Required Media
Centers for Research Quality. (2015a, August 13). Overview of qualitative research methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/IsAUNs-IoSQ

Centers for Research Quality. (2015b, August 13). Overview of quantitative research methods [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cwU8as9ZNlA

Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2018). Review of research: Anatomy of a research study [Mutlimedia file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Schulich Library McGill. (2017, June 6). Types of reviews [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5Rv9z7Mp4kg

Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?

When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.

Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.

Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?

In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.
Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies

After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:

The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Include a title page, introduction, summary, and reference page.