MORE EBN Inclusion Criteria

More than 130 journals are reviewed as they are published to identify articles that meet our criteria for scientific merit, as set out below:

Basic criteria

• Original or review articles
  
• In English
  
• Quantitative studies
  
• About topics that are important to the clinical practice of nurses in any setting
  
• Analysis of each article is consistent with the study question
  

Studies of prevention or treatment must meet these additional criteria:

• Random allocation of participants to comparison groups
  
• Follow up (end point assessment) of 80% of those entering the investigation
  
• Outcome measure of known or probable clinical importance
  

Studies of assessment (screening or diagnosis) must meet these additional criteria:

• Inclusion of a spectrum of participants, some, but not all of whom, have the condition of interest
  
• Objective diagnostic ("gold ") standard (eg, central venous pressure) or current clinical standard for diagnosis (eg, sphygmomanometer reading for hypertension), preferably with documentation of reproducible criteria for subjectively interpreted diagnostic standard (ie, report of statistically significant measure of agreement beyond chance among observers)
  
• Each participant must receive both the new test and some form of the diagnostic standard
  
• Interpretation of diagnostic standard without knowledge of test result
  
• Interpretation of test without knowledge of diagnostic standard result
  

Studies of prognosis must meet these additional criteria:

• Inception cohort (first onset or assembled at a uniform point in the development of a condition or disease) of individuals, all initially free of the outcome of interest
  
• Follow up of 80% of participants until the occurrence of a major study endpoint or to the end of the study
  

Studies of causation must meet these additional criteria:

• Observations concerning the relation between modifiable exposures and putative clinical outcomes
  
• Prospective data collection with clearly identified comparison group(s) for those at risk of, or having, the outcome of interest (in descending order of preference, from randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort study with case by case matching or statistical adjustment to create comparable groups, or nested case-control studies)
  
• Blinding (masking) of observers of outcome to exposure (criterion assumed to be met if outcome is objective, eg, all cause mortality or self administered psychometric test)
  

Studies of quality improvement or continuing education must meet these additional criteria:

• Random allocation of participants or units to comparison groups
  
• Follow up of 80% of participants
  
• Outcome measure of known or probable clinical importance
  

Studies of the economics of healthcare programmes or interventions must meet these additional criteria:

• The economic question must compare alternative courses of action
  
• Alternative diagnostic or therapeutic services or quality improvement activities must be compared on the basis of both the outcomes produced (effectiveness) and resources consumed (costs)
  
• Evidence of effectiveness must be from a study (or studies) of real (not hypothetical) patients, which meets the criteria for treatment, assessment, quality improvement, or a review article
  
• Results should be presented in terms of the incremental or additional costs and outcomes of one intervention over another
  
• Where there is uncertainty in the estimates or imprecision in the measurement, a sensitivity analysis should be done
  

Clinical prediction guides must meet these additional criteria:

• The guide must be generated in 1 set of real (not hypothetical) patients (training set)
  
• The guide must be validated in an independent set of real patients (test set)
  
• The guide must pertain to treatment, assessment, prognosis, or causation
  

Review articles must meet these additional criteria:

• A clear statement of the clinical topic being reviewed
  
• A clear description of the sources and methods for identifying articles
  
• Specification of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting articles for detailed review
  
• 1 article in the review must meet the above noted criteria for treatment, assessment, prognosis, causation, quality improvement, or economics of healthcare programmes.
  

These criteria are subject to modification if, for example, it is found feasible to apply higher standards that increase the validity and applicability of studies for clinical practice. The objective of the criteria screen is to include only the very best literature, consistent with a reasonable number of articles "making it through the filter."