Evidence synthesis for doctoral practice projects

Three faults account for most returns, and all three are structural rather than stylistic.

The search cannot be repeated. A chapter that names databases without giving the strategy, the date, and the yield per line is asserting a claim about the literature that nobody can check. Committees increasingly ask for the strategy as an appendix, and the request is difficult to satisfy retrospectively.

The appraisal is a grid with no argument. Scores filled into a table tell a reader nothing about why a study was strong or weak. What is being assessed is whether you understood the evidence, and a numeric column does not demonstrate that.

The chapter summarises instead of synthesising. Study after study described in sequence, with no position drawn from them. A synthesis has to argue toward the intervention you are proposing, which means organising by finding rather than by paper.

1. 1

   Question and criteria

   We sharpen the practice question into something searchable and write eligibility criteria explicit enough to apply consistently.

2. 2

   Reproducible search

   Strategies built per database against each thesaurus, including CINAHL Subject Headings, with the yield documented line by line.

3. 3

   Screening with a record

   Screening against the criteria with decisions and exclusion reasons recorded, so the flow of studies can be reported.

4. 4

   Appraisal with reasoning

   CASP or JBI checklists applied per design, with a written judgement for each study rather than a score alone.

5. 5

   Evidence tables and synthesis

   Tables that keep level and quality in separate columns, and a synthesis organised by finding that argues toward your intervention.

Which framework you name changes all four of these, which is why it has to be settled before the search runs rather than after. The consequences are set out in how practice models change your search and appraisal.

You receive the search strategy per database in appendix-ready form, screening records with exclusion reasons, appraisal judgements with reasoning, evidence tables, and the written synthesis. Where the project needs a formal risk of bias assessment rather than checklist appraisal, or GRADE certainty ratings to preserve the publication option, those are built in from the start.

• A searchable question and eligibility criteria that can be applied consistently
• Reproducible strategies per database, including CINAHL, in appendix-ready form
• Screening records with exclusion reasons and a reportable flow of studies
• Appraisal per design with a written judgement for every study
• Evidence tables keeping level and quality in separate columns
• A synthesis organised by finding that argues toward the proposed change

The right-hand column costs little more at the time and a great deal to add later. The distinction between hierarchies and certainty ratings is covered in levels of evidence in nursing.

We quote a fixed fee shaped by the number of databases, the expected yield to screen, the appraisal standard your programme requires, and how much of the chapter you want drafted. Send the practice question and your programme template and we will return a fixed quote.