5 Searching for Evidence 93
The team can also gain valuable information by searching the table of contents
of subject-related, peer-reviewed journals and by evaluating the reference list of
books and articles cited in the works. All are valid ways to gather additional in-
formation.
Evaluating, Revising, and Storing Search Results
Whether EBP team members conduct a search individually or with the help of a
medical librarian, it is the searcher’s responsibility to evaluate the results for rel-
evance and quality. Keep in mind that to answer the clinical question thoroughly,
a team’s search strategies may need several revisions, and they should allow ad-
equate time for these alterations. A good way to eliminate lower-quality literature
in an initial review is to judge the resources using the following criteria (Johns
Hopkins University—The Sheridan Libraries, 2010):
■■ Who wrote it? What is the author’s affiliation, background, intent, or
bias?
■■ Who is the intended audience? Is it intended for specialists, practitioners,
the general public, or another targeted group?
■■ What is the scope or coverage? Is the resource meant to give a general
overview, foundational introduction, detailed investigation, cutting-edge
update, or some other level of detail?
■■ Why was it written or published? Is it meant to inform, explain, enter-
tain, or persuade? Is it intended to be objective and neutral or controver-
sial?
■■ How current is it? When was it published and last updated?
■■ Where or by whom was it published? Does this individual or group have
a particular role or agenda? If relevant, what is the source of funding?
■■ How is the information presented? Are sources or evidence cited? Are
there bibliographies, footnotes, or other specific citations?
■■ How accurate is it? Is there an evidence trail? Are related sources cited in
order to triangulate information or claims?
