LAUSR

Editor’s note: Reading research and incorporating valid research results into practice is a vital part of ensuring that perioperative nursing practice is evidence based. The AORN Research Evidence Appraisal Tools can help perioperative nurses evaluate research. There are three tools for evaluation of the different types of evidence: the Research Evidence Appraisal Tool–Study, the Research Evidence Appraisal Tool–Summary, and the Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool. These tools are used to evaluate the evidence upon which AORN’s guidelines are based. The tools can be used to appraise the level of evidence and quality of evidence for a single research study, a summary of multiple research studies, or non-research evidence. Each section of the tool is discussed to help readers understand why the study received a particular appraisal score and what that rating means to perioperative nursing practice. Clinical judgment should be used to determine whether the findings of an individual study are of value and relevance in a particular setting or patient care situation. Individuals intending to put this study’s findings into practice are encouraged to review the original article to determine its applicability to their setting. D numerous initiatives and advances to decrease postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) when caring for patients before, during, and after surgery, these infections continue to occur at an alarming rate. The rate of complications stemming from major infections, including SSIs after cardiac surgery, is of significant concern to both patients and physicians. These infections increase morbidity, death, and the overall cost of care. Efforts to eliminate the occurrence of mediastinal infections postoperatively have been largely unsuccess‐ ful, with little change in the postoperative infection rate over time. Although several risk factors for mediastinal infections after cardiac surgery have been published, the quality of that information has been called into question. A few of the issues with the information include that it comprises single‐ center generated data, uses a retrospec‐ tive study design, and lacks patient follow‐ up post dis‐ charge and 30 days postoperatively.