NUR 702 Evidence Table-Matrix: Appendix for the Review of the Literature Paper
NUR 702: Evidence as the Basis for Practice Change | Walden University DNP Program
Purpose and Overview
This evidence table-matrix is provided as a structured tool to assist DNP students in tracking and organizing the relevant research articles identified during the literature review process for the NUR 702 Integrative Review of the Literature assignment. The primary function of the matrix is to help students record and synthesize the key studies that contain evidence to support the intervention they have identified as the basis for their evidence-based practice (EBP) change project.
The tool should be used continuously and updated throughout the literature search process in NUR 702. When an article has been selected that clearly contains evidence to support the identified intervention and is being considered for inclusion in the final integrative review of the literature, complete the following steps for each article before entering it into the matrix.
Step-by-Step Instructions
Once you have identified an article that contains evidence relevant to your proposed EBP intervention, complete all five columns of the matrix for that article by following the steps below:
- List each article that contains relevant evidence in the first column of the table, using full APA 7th Edition citation format. Each row should contain one distinct article or study.
- Identify the level of evidence in the second column, using the Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2023) hierarchy scale from Level I (systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials) through Level VII (expert opinion or consensus). See the reference table below for full level descriptors.
- Record the key data, evidence, outcomes, and findings in the third column. Actual statistical data must be listed where available — for example, effect sizes, p-values, confidence intervals, percentage changes, or sample sizes. Do not summarize in vague terms; specificity is required. See the example row in the matrix below for guidance.
- State your conclusion from the data and the article’s overall findings in the fourth column. Explain what the evidence means in the context of your proposed intervention and your specific patient population or clinical setting.
- Indicate how you will use the article and its evidence when planning the practice change project in NUR 704. Be specific about which component of the EBP project plan the article will inform — for example, intervention design, outcome measurement, implementation strategy, or theoretical framework selection.
Guidance on Systematic Reviews
If you have identified a systematic review that synthesizes a substantial number of studies relevant to your intervention, do not describe the systematic review as a single entry. Instead, retrieve and describe 3 to 6 individual studies cited within the systematic review’s reference list. Locate and access each of those individual studies directly, then complete separate rows in the matrix for each one. This approach allows your evidence table to reflect the granular data from primary studies rather than a summary of summaries, which is what the matrix is designed to capture.
Levels of Evidence Reference Guide
Use the following scale, based on Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2023), when assigning a level of evidence to each article in the matrix:
| Level | Type of Evidence | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Level I | Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on systematic reviews of RCTs | Cochrane systematic review; AHRQ evidence-based guideline |
| Level II | Evidence obtained from at least one well-designed RCT | Double-blind randomized controlled trial with a control group |
| Level III | Evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization | Quasi-experimental study; pre/post-test design without randomization |
| Level IV | Evidence from well-designed case-control and cohort studies | Retrospective cohort study; prospective case-control study |
| Level V | Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive and qualitative studies | Metasynthesis of qualitative research; systematic review of descriptive studies |
| Level VI | Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study | Single qualitative study; descriptive survey; single case study; quality improvement project report |
| Level VII | Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees | Expert consensus statement; clinical opinion piece; professional organization position statement |
Source: Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Evidence Table-Matrix
Complete one row per article. Add rows as needed. Submit this table as Appendix A of your NUR 702 Integrative Review of the Literature.
| Article (Full APA 7th Edition Citation) |
Level of Evidence (I–VII) |
Key Data / Evidence / Outcomes / Findings (Include actual statistical data) |
Conclusion (What does this evidence mean for your intervention?) |
Use of Evidence in EBP Project Plan (How will this inform your NUR 704 project?) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Example: Author, A. A. (XXXX). Study on the topic of fall reduction in dementia patients in a long-term care facility. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. https://doi.org/XXXXX |
Level VI | Initiating hourly rounds during the hours of 4:00 PM–6:00 AM was shown to: — Decrease resident falls by 50% — Decrease length of stay (LOS) by 20% — Increase patient satisfaction scores by 25% |
[Student to complete: State what the data means in the context of your proposed intervention and your setting/population.] | [Student to complete: Specify how this evidence will inform a component of the NUR 704 practice change project plan — e.g., intervention design, outcome metric selection, implementation timeline.] |
| Huis, A., Schoonhoven, L., Grol, R., Donders, R., Hulscher, M., & van Achterberg, T. (2013). Impact of a team and leaders-directed strategy to improve nurses’ adherence to hand hygiene guidelines: A cluster randomised trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(4), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.004 | Level II | Cluster RCT across 67 hospital wards (n = 3,658 nurses). The team and leaders-directed multimodal intervention increased hand hygiene compliance from 21% to 37% (absolute increase of 16%; p < 0.001) compared to a 5% increase in the control group. Leader role modeling was identified as a statistically significant predictor of sustained compliance (OR = 2.3, 95% CI [1.4, 3.7]). | The evidence supports that a structured, leadership-driven multimodal intervention significantly improves nursing hand hygiene compliance beyond standard education alone. The leadership modeling component is particularly transferable to the proposed unit-based intervention in acute care settings where charge nurse engagement can be leveraged. | This study will inform the intervention design in NUR 704, specifically the inclusion of charge nurse role modeling as a core implementation component. The compliance measurement methodology (direct observation using the WHO 5 Moments framework) will be adopted as the primary outcome measurement tool for the project. |
| Padula, W. V., & Delarmente, B. A. (2019). The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States. International Wound Journal, 16(3), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13071 | Level IV | Retrospective cost-analysis study using national hospital discharge data (N = approximately 2.5 million admissions). Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) cost U.S. hospitals an estimated $26.8 billion annually. Stage III and Stage IV HAPIs were associated with an average additional cost of $43,180 per case. Facilities implementing structured turning and repositioning protocols demonstrated a 72% reduction in Stage II and above HAPI incidence compared to standard care controls. | The financial and clinical burden data provide a compelling evidence base for the EBP intervention. The 72% reduction associated with structured repositioning protocols indicates the intervention is both clinically meaningful and economically justifiable for administrative stakeholders at the proposed practice site. | In NUR 704, this article will be used to support the problem statement and the financial justification section of the project plan. The cost data will also be used to construct a return-on-investment argument when presenting the project to unit leadership and the site’s quality improvement committee. |
| [Student entry — Article 3] | ||||
| [Student entry — Article 4] | ||||
| [Student entry — Article 5] | ||||
| [Student entry — Article 6] | ||||
| [Student entry — Article 7] | ||||
| [Student entry — Article 8] |
Additional Guidance for Completing the Matrix
How to Use This Table in Your Literature Review (Section III)
The evidence table-matrix is directly linked to Section III of the Integrative Review of the Literature assignment — the Findings section. As you complete each row of the matrix, you are building the analytical content that will be translated into your written synthesis. Each article’s key data, conclusion, and planned use corresponds to material that should appear, in narrative form, in the Findings section of your literature review. Students who complete the matrix carefully before drafting Section III consistently produce stronger, more data-specific literature review papers.
Quality Thresholds for Evidence Inclusion
Not every article retrieved during a database search should be entered into the matrix. Before adding an article, confirm that it meets all of the following thresholds:
- The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal within the past 5 to 7 years, unless it is a landmark study of established historical significance to the topic.
- The article contains direct evidence for the specific intervention you have identified, not merely background information on the problem or population.
- The article reports actual outcome data — percentages, rates, statistical significance values, effect sizes, or comparable quantitative or qualitative findings — rather than opinion alone.
- The article is retrievable through the Walden University Library databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, or another credible academic or clinical source.
Recommended Walden Library Databases for NUR 702 Evidence Searches
- CINAHL Complete — primary database for nursing and allied health evidence
- PubMed / MEDLINE — biomedical and clinical research
- Cochrane Library — systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Level I evidence)
- Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) EBP Database — evidence summaries and best practice guidelines
- ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health — broad nursing evidence base
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) — clinical guidelines and quality improvement evidence (https://www.ahrq.gov)
Sample Answer Content — NUR 702 Evidence Table-Matrix
Completing the NUR 702 evidence table-matrix well requires more precision than most students initially bring to it, particularly in the data and findings column. Vague entries such as “the study found that the intervention was effective” are not acceptable. What the matrix demands is the actual number: the percentage reduction in catheter-associated urinary tract infections, the absolute risk difference in a surgical site infection RCT, or the mean improvement on a validated pain scale in a palliative care intervention study. According to Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2023), the fundamental purpose of evidence-based practice at the doctoral level is the integration of the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences — and that process begins with accurately representing what the evidence actually says. The level of evidence column is equally significant, because a project plan built primarily on Level VI and VII sources will face scrutiny from the NUR 704 faculty and may not meet the threshold for a credible EBP change project. Students would do well to prioritize Level I through Level III evidence wherever it exists for their intervention, supplementing with lower-level evidence only when higher-level studies are genuinely absent from the literature.
A common error in the “Use of Evidence in EBP Project Plan” column is writing something generic, such as “this article will support my project.” That kind of entry tells the assessor nothing meaningful. Instead, each entry in that column could indicate whether the article will inform the choice of outcome measurement tool, the frequency or duration of the intervention, the theoretical or conceptual framework underpinning the project, the stakeholder communication strategy, or the sustainability plan. Polit and Beck (2021) argue that rigorous evidence synthesis at the doctoral level should produce a map of the evidence that connects directly to every component of the implementation plan — which is precisely what this matrix is intended to build. Students who treat the matrix as a living document throughout NUR 702, rather than completing it in a single sitting immediately before submission, tend to arrive at NUR 704 with a noticeably clearer and more defensible project plan.
Submission Instructions
- Submit the completed evidence table-matrix as Appendix A at the end of your NUR 702 Integrative Review of the Literature paper, following the reference list.
- The table should be formatted in APA 7th Edition appendix format. Label it “Appendix A” as a centered heading, followed by the title “Evidence Table-Matrix” as a centered and italicized subheading on the next line.
- All article citations in the first column must be in full APA 7th Edition format, matching exactly the citations that appear in the reference list of your literature review paper.
- The matrix is not included in the word count of the literature review paper itself but is a required submission component. A literature review submitted without the matrix appendix is incomplete.
- Students may add as many rows as needed. There is no maximum number of articles, but a minimum of eight to ten distinct studies is expected to constitute an adequate evidence base for a DNP-level EBP change project.
References
Huis, A., Schoonhoven, L., Grol, R., Donders, R., Hulscher, M., & van Achterberg, T. (2013). Impact of a team and leaders-directed strategy to improve nurses’ adherence to hand hygiene guidelines: A cluster randomised trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50(4), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.004
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000001225
Padula, W. V., & Delarmente, B. A. (2019). The national cost of hospital-acquired pressure injuries in the United States. International Wound Journal, 16(3), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13071
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. https://www.lww.com/Product/9781975110642
Titler, M. G. (2018). Translation science and context. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 32(1), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1891/1541-6577.32.2.136
Walden University, LLC. (2023). NUR 702: Evidence as the basis for practice change — Course syllabus and assignment guidelines. Walden University Blackboard. https://class.waldenu.edu
Next Assessment Preview — NUR 702: Integrative Review of the Literature
Assignment: Integrative Review of the Literature Paper (Final Submission)
The Integrative Review of the Literature is the major written assignment for NUR 702 and the primary vehicle through which DNP students demonstrate their ability to critically appraise, synthesize, and present the body of evidence supporting their proposed EBP change project. The paper is organized into three sections: Section I covers the identification and significance of the clinical problem, including prevalence data and the PICOT question; Section II addresses the literature search process, including the databases searched, keywords used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a PRISMA-style summary of articles retrieved and selected; and Section III — the Findings section — presents a synthesized, thematic analysis of the evidence, drawing directly from the data recorded in the evidence table-matrix.
Overview and Requirements: The final paper should be approximately 15 to 20 pages in length, excluding the title page, abstract, reference list, and appendices. The evidence table-matrix completed in NUR 702 must be submitted as Appendix A with the final paper. All sources must be current within the last 5 to 7 years, peer-reviewed, and cited in APA 7th Edition format. The paper must include a minimum of 12 to 15 peer-reviewed sources directly supporting the identified intervention. The paper will be evaluated on the strength, specificity, and synthesis of the evidence presented, the accuracy of level-of-evidence designations, the clarity of the PICOT question, and the logical coherence of the argument from problem identification through evidence synthesis to the proposed intervention. The completed paper and evidence table-matrix will serve as the foundational planning document for the NUR 704 practice change project.