Search for Evidence Clinical Questions †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Search for Evidence Clinical Questions. Answer: Introduction In this assignment, I will demonstrate how I searched for evidence using a given clinical question. The first step entailed identifying the key terms in the PICO question and finding alternative words. When performing the search in the two selected databases, I used the main key words in the PICO question and alternative terms to find relevant resources. Search for evidence Nurses should strive to search for the highest level of evidence to answer clinical questions. This concept is supported by the fact that evidence-based practice (EBP) entails searching for evidence and utilizing that evidence to make clinical decisions (Burns, Rohrich, Chung, 2011). PICO is an acronym for population, intervention, comparison and outcome and it is used for diagnostic as well as treatment studies (Raich Skelly, 2013). The key terms for the clinical questions are (P) young women, I (green tea), (C) black tea, and (O) prevent cancer. I would use these alternative words, young ladies, tea, malignancy and tumour. The key words in the clinical question and alternative words would be used in combination to ensure relevant sources (peer reviewed journals) are gotten for this study. Moreover, search techniques such as Boolean operators, truncation, wildcard and limiters would be used to broaden and narrow the search as desired. These keywords would help me to gather sufficient records and information for determining whether green tea is better than black tea in preventing cancer. The best two databases that would be used to search for evidence based on the clinical question are CINAHL Complete and PubMed. These two databases have been chosen because of several reasons. CINAHL Complete allows users to get quick full-text access to peer reviewed journals and evidence-based care sheets. Additionally, CINAHL Complete has vast volumes of literature that are helpful to nurses and allied health professionals. The database offers full text access to about 1,300 journals, indexing for about 5,400 journals. It has searchable cited references for approximately 1,500 journals. Users can have access to approximately 5.5 million records (EBSCO, 2017). The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) is also an effective tool for primary studies for qualitative evidence synthesis. On the other hand, PubMed has been chosen because it specifically contains medical literature. Most practitioners use this database for medical literature. PubMed is also desirable because it indexes only peer reviewed biomedical literature. Further, PubMed offers free full-text access to some top publications (Shariff, et al., 2013). Unlike other databases, PubMed offers indexed information that is directly pertinent to physicians such as restricted vocabulary and access to discipline-specific filters. CINAHL Complete and PubMed have various difference based on the number of academic resources, ease of retrieval and limiters, but they would be relevant to the search for evidence based on the identified keywords. In this table, I will demonstrate how I performed a search using CINAHL complete. The table is adapted from (Richardson-Tench, Taylor, Kermode, Roberts, 2016). Actions Search mode Results Limiters (or expanders) S1 Young women AND cancer Find all my search terms 29,449 Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals 2012 - 2017 S2 Black tea AND cancer Find all my search terms 2,816 Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals 2012 - 2017 S3 Green tea and Cancer Find all my search terms 4,147 Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals 2012 - 2017 S4 Young wom* AND cancer AND back tea Find all my search terms 1,370 Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals 2012 - 2017 S5 Young ladies AND cancer AND green tea Find all my search terms 472 Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals 2012 - 2017 S6 Young lad* AND cancer AND green tea Find all my search terms 164 Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals 2012 2017 The final search results were relevant to the PICO since they offered insights of the use of both green tea and black tea in the prevention of cancer in young women. Some of the resources explained the mechanism of action of catechins, which is found in tea. Most of the resources expounded on the use of different plant polyphenols. Green tea is an abundant source of plant polyphenols (OyetakinWhite, Tribout, Baron, 2012). The sources also presented literature on the integration of tea in the diet and the appropriate amounts. The results of the search would help me to write a paper on the use of tea as a preventive measure to prevent the onset of cancer in young ladies. I have included the best two resources examples from the final search in the reference list. Conclusion EBP is fundamental because it has an objective of providing the most effective care that is available. Through EBP, patients have the chances of receiving the best possible care. Besides, I have found EBP effective in promoting an attitude of inquiry in health professionals. In conclusion, EBP ensures that finite health resources are utilized effectively, and that pertinent evidence is considered when making clinical decisions. References The best two resources Miura, K., Hughes, M. B., Arovah, N. I., van der Pols, J. C., Green, A. C. (2015). Black Tea Consumption and Risk of Skin Cancer: An 11-Year Prospective Study. Nutrition Cancer, 67(7), 1049-1055. Rasheed, I., Waheed, K., Ejaz, S. (2016). Frequency of Cervical Pre-Malignancy in Pregnant Women. Annals Of King Edward Medical University, 22(3), 207-210. Other references Burns, P., Rohrich, R., Chung, K. (2011). The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and reconstructive surgery , 128 (1), 305-310. EBSCO. (2017). Access the Best and Most Current Nursing and Allied Health Literature . Retrieved 8 31, 2017, from https://www.ebscohost.com/nursing/products/cinahl-databases/cinahl-complete OyetakinWhite, P., Tribout, H., Baron, E. (2012). Protective mechanisms of green tea polyphenols in skin. Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity , 560682. Raich, A., Skelly, A. (2013). Asking the right question: specifying your study question. Evidence-based spine-care journal , 4 (02), 068-071. Richardson-Tench, M., Taylor, B., Kermode, S., Roberts, K. (2016). Inquiry in health care. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning. Shariff, S., Bejaimal, S., Sontrop, J., Iansavichus, A., Haynes, R., Weir, M., et al. (2013). Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches. Journal of medical Internet research , 15 (8), e164.