EBP Identification of Clinical Questions Discussion
A preparation task with two easily missed instructions: discarding sources is part of the work, and a theory with no assignable evidence level is not thereby a weak theory.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 22, 2026
Discarding sources is part of the assignment
Two instructions in this brief are easy to skim past and both are markable. The first is that appraisal here includes discarding: you are told to use the guidelines to discard references that are untrustworthy or irrelevant, which means the visible output is not only what you kept but your reason for rejecting the rest. Most students silently drop weak sources and lose the credit for having recognised them, so keep a short record of what you excluded and why, separating untrustworthy, meaning the study cannot support its claims, from irrelevant, meaning the study is sound but does not address your question. Those are different judgements and conflating them is the usual error, and it matters because they point in different directions: an untrustworthy source stays out however relevant it is, while a relevant-but-excluded source may be worth keeping as background even though it cannot carry a claim.
The second is the note about theories. You are told that not all theories have research allowing a level to be assigned, and that this does not make them poor theories. That matters because the hierarchy ranks studies by susceptibility to bias, and a conceptual framework is not a study at all, so forcing it onto the pyramid is a category mistake rather than a low rating. Say in your post what a theory contributes instead: it supplies the mechanism your intervention is supposed to work through and the concepts your outcome measures operationalise. Beyond that, the practical work is a documented search. Record databases, terms, Boolean combinations, filters and dates, because a search you cannot reproduce cannot be defended and the full proposal the brief mentions will need the trail. Cover the range of source types the brief lists rather than only research articles, since guidelines and protocols answer different questions from primary studies.
Likely learning objectives
- Treat exclusion decisions as part of the appraisal output.
- Distinguish untrustworthy sources from irrelevant ones.
- Explain why a theory cannot be assigned an evidence level.
- Document a search so that it can be reproduced.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Prepare for your upcoming Topic 5 assignment, Collaborative Learning Community: EBP Literature Search/Appraisal of Evidence. Remember to record all communication in the CLC Forum. Use the evidence hierarchy pyramid provided in Figure 2.1 in the Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice textbook as a guide for the levels of evidence in your reference list. Locate case studies, relevant clinical articles written by experts, research articles, evidence-based guidelines, protocols, and theories that may guide the identification of appropriate solutions. This can include the articles reviewed in Topic 3. Note: Not all theories will have research that allows them to have a level assigned to them. This does not mean they are not good theories. A true proposal would require a comprehensive review of the literature and inclusion of all relevant works. Appraise the evidence using the guidelines provided in the Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice textbook. Use these guidelines to discard references that are untrustworthy or irrelevant. Box 2.2 can help with this decision-making process. Chapter 5 provides guidance on how to synthesize the article findings. Use the assigned Topic Material, “CLC EBP Research Table,” to consolidate and present the findings. Limit the articles to no more than 10 (two per student in the CLC group would be reasonable). Choose one group member to submit the completed assignment by the end of Topic 5.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes. Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages. Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor. The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A documented search with databases, terms and filters.
- 02Sources covering the range of types the brief names.
- 03An evidence level assigned to each source that can carry one.
- 04A record of excluded sources with the reason for each.
- 05A statement of what the chosen theory contributes.
- 06An appraisal using the guidelines named in the brief.
Search, level, appraise, then discard with a reason
The search, documented
Record databases, terms, Boolean logic, filters and dates.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A search string a reader could re-run.
Levelling what can be levelled
Assign hierarchy levels to studies and say what orders them.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Levels attached to designs rather than to journals.
What you discarded and why
List exclusions separated into untrustworthy and irrelevant.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Two distinct exclusion categories, each with an example.
Where theory sits
Explain why a framework carries no level and what it contributes instead.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Theory described as supplying mechanism rather than evidence.
Covering the source types
Show guidelines, protocols and case studies alongside research articles.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A guideline used for something a primary study could not answer.
Where the hierarchy and appraisal guidance live
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- Cochrane Library
- GCU Library
Search sequence
- 1.Write the search string before running it, and save it with the results.
- 2.Read the appraisal guidelines named in the brief before judging any source.
- 3.Check the evidence hierarchy your course uses so your levels match it.
- 4.Identify one guideline and one theory so the source range is covered.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, via PubMed Central · 2010
The evidence hierarchy and grades, for assigning levels defensibly.
PRISMA, for documenting a search and its exclusions transparently.
Evidence-Based Medicine
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Evidence-based medicine, for where evidence sits relative to expertise and values.
Nursing Theories & Models
Nursology · 2025
A survey of nursing theories, for choosing one and stating its contribution.
Unhealthy Alcohol Use in Adolescents and Adults: Screening and Behavioral Counseling Interventions
United States Preventive Services Task Force · 2018
A graded guideline, as an example of a source type that is not a primary study.
Before you post to the CLC forum
Common mistakes
- Reporting only the sources kept, so the discard decisions are invisible.
- Treating untrustworthy and irrelevant as the same reason for exclusion.
- Assigning an evidence level to a theory and rating it low.
- Searching only for research articles and ignoring guidelines and protocols.
- Recording a search too loosely to be repeated.
Submission checklist
- Could someone else reproduce your search from what you wrote?
- Have you listed excluded sources with reasons?
- Are the two exclusion reasons kept distinct?
- Is the theory's contribution stated rather than ranked?
- Do your sources span the types the brief lists?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.