Evidence-Based Practice Application

Proof required

Submit your PICO question, documented search strategy, PRISMA flow diagram, and a list of your final included studies (minimum 5 primary studies or 2 systematic reviews).

What gets checked

• Search strategy includes Boolean operators and controlled vocabulary (MeSH or equivalent) — simple keyword searches are not sufficient for a structured literature search.
• Inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined before the search, not applied retrospectively to prefer certain results.
• PRISMA diagram shows the screening stages accurately — number at each stage must be traceable from the search results.

Common mistakes

• Single database search — two databases are required to avoid bias from one source's coverage.
• Inclusion criteria that are vague ('relevant studies') rather than specific (study type, population, language, date range).
• PRISMA diagram produced retrospectively without actually conducting the screening stages — common when the studies are chosen first and the flow is drawn to match.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student to demonstrate one step of the literature search in real time — shows they understand the process, not just the output.
• Check that the PRISMA diagram numbers are traceable — ask them to explain the number at the 'records after duplicates removed' stage.
• Ask what MeSH term they used for their exposure or intervention.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit 3 critical appraisal summaries (1 page each), each using a named and consistently applied appraisal tool. Include a comparative quality summary showing which study you judge most reliable and why.

What gets checked

• Appraisal tool is named and consistently applied across all 3 studies — switching tools mid-portfolio defeats the comparison.
• Risk of bias assessment is specific — identifies the specific bias risk in each study, not just states 'some bias may be present'.
• Comparative quality summary gives a clear recommendation on which study provides the strongest evidence, with specific reasoning.

Common mistakes

• Appraisal that rates all three studies as high quality — critical appraisal should identify genuine weaknesses, not just validate.
• Risk of bias assessment that is generic ('small sample size is a common limitation') without applying to the specific study.
• Comparative summary that avoids ranking the studies — the purpose of appraisal is to judge evidence quality, not describe it.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student to identify the single greatest methodological limitation across the three studies they appraised.
• Check that the CASP or equivalent tool is applied correctly — not just used as a checklist with all boxes ticked 'yes'.
• Ask which study they would cite if they were writing a clinical guideline and why.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your evidence summary (2 pages), a brief description of who you presented to and in what setting, written feedback from at least 2 attendees, and a one-paragraph reflection on what you'd change in the summary based on the feedback.

What gets checked

• Evidence summary states the strength of evidence explicitly (e.g. 'moderate-quality evidence from 2 RCTs and 1 cohort study') — not just 'the evidence suggests'.
• Clinical implications section is specific to your setting — not a generic 'this evidence should inform practice'.
• Feedback is from people with clinical or research context — not from personal acquaintances without relevant knowledge.

Common mistakes

• Evidence summary that summarises the studies without synthesising the evidence — a summary of three papers is not a synthesis.
• Presentation to peers who have no clinical or research context — feedback is only useful if the audience can evaluate the content.
• Reflection that is positive without naming a specific change — 'the feedback was good' is not a reflection.

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the student to state the strength of evidence for their question in one sentence — if they can't, the synthesis hasn't been completed.
• Check that feedback is from people with relevant clinical or research context.
• Ask what the single most important clinical implication from the evidence is — the answer shows whether the synthesis was actionable.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.