Evidence level and quality rating:     

Level__III   Quality __Strong

The level is due to the fact that this is a systematic review of qualitative data with meta-analysis. It has a “strong” quality rating because of its solid and reliable findings. The scope of the review also give it a wide applicability         

Article title: Physical Distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Number: 1

Author(s): Derek K Chu, Stephanie Duda, Karla Solo, Sally Yaacoub, Holger J Schunemann

Publication date: June 1, 2020

Journal: Open Access

Setting:  Online-based COVID-19 research sources

Sample (composition and size): 172 Observational studies. The total sample size is 25, 695 patients

Does this evidence address my EBP question? (i.e., What are the best PE practices for Healthcare staff’s personal safety?

Yes

Yes

No-Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence

Is this study:

QuaNtitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of numerical data)
Measurable data (how many; how much; or how often) used to formulate facts, uncover patterns in research, and generalize results from a larger sample population; provides observed effects of a program, problem, or condition, measured precisely, rather than through researcher interpretation of data. Common methods are surveys, face-to-face structured interviews, observations, and reviews of records or documents. Statistical tests are used in data analysis.

Go to Section I: QuaNtitative

QuaLitative (collection, analysis, and reporting of narrative data)
Rich narrative documents are used for uncovering themes; describes a problem or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it. Common methods are focus groups, individual interviews (unstructured or semi structured), and participation/observations. Sample sizes are small and are determined when data saturation is achieved. Data saturation is reached when the researcher identifies that no new themes emerge and redundancy is occurring. Synthesis is used in data analysis. Often a starting point for studies when little research exists; may use results to design empirical studies. The researcher describes, analyzes, and interprets reports, descriptions, and observations from participants.

Go to Section II: QuaLitative

Mixed methods (results reported both numerically and narratively)
Both quaNtitative and quaLitative methods are used in the study design. Using both approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than using either approach alone. Sample sizes vary based on methods used. Data collection involves collecting and analyzing both quaNtitative and quaLitative data in a single study or series of studies. Interpretation is continual and can influence stages in the research process.

Go to Section III: Mixed Methods

Section I: QuaNtitative

Level of Evidence (Study Design)

Is this a report of a single research study?

□   Yes

□  No
Go to B

1. Was there manipulation of an independent variable?

□      Yes

□    No

2. Was there a control group?

□      Yes

□    No

3. Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups?

□      Yes

□    No

If Yes to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or experimental study.

LEVEL I

If Yes to questions 1 and 2 and No to question 3 or Yes to question 1 and No to questions 2 and 3, this is quasi-experimental.
(Some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, and may have a control group).

LEVEL II

If No to questions 1, 2, and 3, this is nonexperimental.
(No manipulation of independent variable; can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational; often uses secondary data).

LEVEL III

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Skip to the Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies section

Section I: QuaNtitative (continued)

Is this a summary of multiple sources of research evidence?

□    Yes
Continue

□   No
Use Appendix F

1. Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method?

If this study includes research, nonresearch, and experiential evidence, it is an integrative review (see Appendix F).

□    Yes
Continue

□   No
Use Appendix F

2. For systematic reviews and systematic reviews with meta-analysis
(see descriptions below):

a.    Are all studies included RCTs?

LEVEL I

b.    Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental, or quasi-experimental only?

LEVEL II

c.    Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental, and nonexperimental, or non- experimental only?

LEVEL III

A systematic review employs a search strategy and a rigorous appraisal method, but does not generate an effect size.

A meta-analysis, or systematic review with meta-analysis, combines and analyzes results from studies to generate a new statistic: the effect size.

Study Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question:

Skip to the Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without a Meta-Analysis) section

Appraisal of QuaNtitative Research Studies

Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge?

□      Yes

□      No

Was the purpose of the study clearly presented

□      Yes

□      No

Was the literature review current (most sources within the past five years or a seminal study)?

Yes

□      No

Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?

□      Yes

□      No

If there is a control group:

·      Were the characteristics and/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

·      If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

·      Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

Are data collection methods described clearly?

□      Yes

□      No

Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s a[alpha] > 0.70)?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

Was instrument validity discussed?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

If surveys or questionnaires were used, was the response
rate > 25%?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

Were the results presented clearly?

□      Yes

□      No

If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?

□      Yes

□      No

N/A

Were study limitations identified and addressed?

□      Yes

□      No

Were conclusions based on results?

□      Yes

□      No

Complete the Quality Rating for QuaNtitative Studies section

Appraisal of Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis)

Were the variables of interest clearly identified? 

□      Yes

□      No

Was the search comprehensive and reproducible?

Key search terms stated?

□      Yes

□      No

·      Multiple databases searched and identified

□      Yes

□      No

·      Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated

□      Yes

□      No

Was there a flow diagram that included the number of studies eliminated at each level of review

□      Yes

□      No

Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths, and limitations

□      Yes

□      No

Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?

□      Yes

□      No

Were conclusions based on results

□      Yes

□      No

Results were interpreted (Last Discussion paragraph).

□      Yes

□      No