Research & Evidence-Based Practice Flashcards
7 cards from real CSC practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Research & Evidence-Based Practice flashcards as text
In a randomized controlled trial for a new antiarrhythmic drug, the p-value is 0.03. Which statement best interprets this finding?
Answer: There is a 3% probability of observing results this extreme if the null hypothesis is true
A p-value of 0.03 means there is a 3% probability of observing results at least this extreme assuming the null hypothesis is true.
A cardiologist wants to evaluate long-term outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in high-risk patients. Which study design is most appropriate if randomization is not feasible?
Answer: Prospective cohort study
A prospective cohort study follows participants forward in time, allowing assessment of long-term outcomes when randomization is not feasible.
Which statistical measure best quantifies the absolute benefit of a cardiac intervention compared to control?
Answer: Absolute risk reduction
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) directly quantifies the difference in event rates between treatment and control groups.
In a meta-analysis of statin trials, significant heterogeneity (I² = 75%) is detected. What is the most appropriate next step?
Answer: Perform subgroup analyses to explore sources of heterogeneity
High I² values indicate substantial heterogeneity; subgroup or sensitivity analyses help identify clinical or methodological sources.
A clinical guideline recommends beta-blockers post-MI with a Class I, Level A recommendation. What does Level A indicate?
Answer: Data derived from multiple randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses
Level of Evidence A indicates the recommendation is supported by data from multiple randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses.
Which type of bias occurs when sicker patients are more likely to receive an experimental cardiac device, making the device appear less effective?
Answer: Selection bias (confounding by indication)
Confounding by indication is a form of selection bias where treatment assignment is driven by disease severity, distorting outcome comparisons.
A cardiac nurse practitioner is applying an evidence-based guideline to a patient with heart failure and CKD stage 4. The original trial excluded patients with GFR < 30. What EBP step is most relevant here?
Answer: Appraising the evidence for applicability to the individual patient
After appraising evidence quality, clinicians must critically assess whether study findings apply to patients who differ from the trial population.