| Course | NSG 660 Scholarly Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Source credibility comparison |
| Length | About 1,140 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NSG 660 Unit 3
Four Sources, One Question About Incentive Spirometry: A Guideline, a Trial, a Cochrane Review, and the Patient Page a Family Finds First
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NSG 660: Scholarly Practice
Instructor Name
January 27, 2026
Four Sources, One Question About Incentive Spirometry: A Guideline, a Trial, a Cochrane Review, and the Patient Page a Family Finds First
The Question Held Fixed
All four sources are read against the working question set in Unit 1: for adults recovering from abdominal operations, does incentive spirometry added to deep breathing, coughing, and early walking, compared with those measures alone, change the rate of pneumonia or a new need for oxygen before discharge? This is a question about a treatment, not about a stable fact of anatomy, so currency matters: a newer trial could change the answer, and a source should be judged partly on whether it could have seen the studies that exist now.
The four sources were chosen to differ in kind, not in quality. Each is read with the same five questions in the same order: who wrote it and what they do; who paid for it or hosts it; when it was written and whether that matters here; what it cites and whether the citations say what the source claims; and what review it passed before publication.
Source 1: A Professional Body's Guideline
Who: Restrepo et al. (2011), writing for the American Association for Respiratory Care, a professional society of respiratory therapists. Who paid or hosts: the society, which publishes the guideline in its own peer-reviewed journal; respiratory therapists deliver incentive spirometry, so the society has a professional stake in the device, which makes its advice against routine use more striking, not less. When: 2011. Its search ran to April 2011, so it could not see the bariatric trial read in Unit 2 or later reminder trials. For a treatment question, that is a real limit. What it cites: the abstract reports a review of 54 clinical trials and systematic reviews; the recommendations use graded wording, "is not recommended" for the device used alone and "it is suggested" for weaker statements, such as that deep breathing exercises give the same benefit as the device. Review: journal peer review plus the society's guideline process.
Reading: a careful source written by people who might be expected to favor the device, which recommends against using it alone. Its age is its main weakness.
Source 2: A Primary Study
Who: Eltorai et al. (2019), surgeons, cardiologists, and researchers at a teaching hospital, reporting a randomized trial of 160 patients after coronary artery bypass surgery. All patients had incentive spirometers fitted with a device that recorded each breath; half had an hourly reminder bell switched on. Who paid or hosts: published in JAMA Surgery. The conflict of interest statement lists the first author as an inventor on a patent application for a patient reminder system for incentive spirometer use, while stating he had received no money from it. When: 2019, recent enough to post-date the guideline. What it cites and finds: patients with the reminder took about twice as many breaths a day, and their final chest X-rays showed slightly less atelectasis. Review: journal peer review; the trial was registered in advance.
Reading: the one source of the four that measured whether patients actually used the device, which is exactly the gap flagged in Unit 1. Two cautions apply. The population is cardiac surgery, not abdominal surgery. And the disclosed patent interest does not make the result wrong, but it means the finding should be replicated by investigators without that interest before a floor acts on it.
Source 3: A Systematic Review
Who: a team of anesthesiologists and researchers in Brazil working with the Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit network that produces systematic reviews (do Nascimento Junior et al., 2014). Who paid or hosts: Cochrane, which does not accept commercial funding for its reviews. When: search completed in August 2013, so like the guideline it predates the newer trials. What it cites: 12 randomized trials with 1,834 participants after upper abdominal surgery, the population closest to the working question. It found no evidence that incentive spirometry prevents pulmonary complications, and it reported that trial quality was hard to judge because of poor reporting and that no trial reported whether patients followed the prescribed therapy. The citations say what the review claims, because the review reports each trial's results in its own tables. Review: Cochrane's editorial and peer review process.
Reading: the strongest source for the population in the working question. Its conclusion is "no evidence of benefit," which is not the same as evidence of no benefit, and the review says so by pointing to the adherence gap.
Source 4: The Page a Family Finds First
Who: MedlinePlus (n.d.), the U.S. National Library of Medicine's consumer health site, in an encyclopedia entry titled "Using an incentive spirometer." The content is supplied by a commercial health-content company, A.D.A.M., and the entry shows a physician reviewer and a review date of October 2025. Who paid or hosts: a federal library, with no advertising on the page. When: reviewed within the last year. What it cites: two surgery and respiratory textbooks, a lung association web page about a different test called spirometry, and a review of incentive spirometry after thoracic surgery. The page says the device "helps you keep your lungs healthy," but its reference list includes no trial showing that. Its own cited review, on thoracic surgery, reports that no study supports a clinical benefit in that population generally, with emerging evidence only in higher-risk groups such as people with COPD (Kotta & Ali, 2021). Review: the site's editorial review, not peer review.
Reading: accurate and practical about how to use the device, with clear instructions on posture, slow breaths, and splinting an incision with a pillow. On whether the device works, it states a benefit its own reference does not support.
Which Source Serves Which Purpose
None of the four is useless; each answers a different part of the question. The Cochrane review is the source to lean on for whether the device, as usually given, helps after abdominal surgery, and its answer is no evidence of benefit. The guideline is the source to cite when proposing a change in practice, because it comes from the profession that delivers the device and it frames the device as an add-on to breathing exercises, walking, and pain control rather than a stand-alone treatment. The trial is the source to cite on the adherence question, since it is the only one that measured use, but it should not be treated as settling the matter for abdominal surgery. The patient page is the source to hand a family for how to use the device correctly, and the one not to quote on whether it works.
Taken together, the three professional sources agree more than they differ: the device as routinely given has not been shown to prevent complications, and the unanswered question is whether a device patients actually use would do better.
References
do Nascimento Junior, P., Módolo, N. S., Andrade, S., Guimarães, M. M., Braz, L. G., & El Dib, R. (2014). Incentive spirometry for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications in upper abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), Article CD006058. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006058.pub3
Eltorai, A. E. M., Baird, G. L., Eltorai, A. S., Healey, T. T., Agarwal, S., Ventetuolo, C. E., Martin, T. J., Chen, J., Kazemi, L., Keable, C. A., Diaz, E., Pangborn, J., Fox, J., Connors, K., Sellke, F. W., Elias, J. A., & Daniels, A. H. (2019). Effect of an incentive spirometer patient reminder after coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surgery, 154(7), 579-588. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.0520
Kotta, P. A., & Ali, J. M. (2021). Incentive spirometry for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications after thoracic surgery. Respiratory Care, 66(2), 327-333. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.07972
MedlinePlus. (n.d.). Using an incentive spirometer. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved January 26, 2026, from https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000451.htm
Restrepo, R. D., Wettstein, R., Wittnebel, L., & Tracy, M. (2011). Incentive spirometry: 2011. Respiratory Care, 56(10), 1600-1604. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01471
The Herzing NSG 660 Unit 3 instructions
Unit 3 asks you to compare the credibility of several sources on one question. Expect to hold the question fixed, describe each source's authors, method, audience and possible conflicts, judge its strengths and limits and explain which purpose each serves. Students often ask how many sources to compare and whether consumer pages count. Four sources of different types work well, including one a patient might read. Credibility depends on method and fit for purpose, not just on who published. A guideline summarizes for clinicians; a trial tests one question; a systematic review pools trials; a consumer page explains for families. Name conflicts of interest where they exist. Keep the question identical for every source.
How the NSG 660 Unit 3 example is put together
The comparison opens by restating the fixed question. Four source sections follow, each with the same headings: who, how, for whom and possible conflicts. The guideline section notes its age, its grading system and how strong the recommendation is. The trial section notes its design, setting and size. The review section notes how many trials it pooled and its certainty rating. The consumer section notes plain language, no citations and an audience of patients and families. The final section assigns each source a purpose, such as the review for the evidence question and the consumer page for patient teaching. The consistent headings make the comparison fair and easy to follow.
Reading the NSG 660 Unit 3 rubric
Herzing's rubric for a source credibility comparison usually covers the fixed question, analysis of each source, attention to method and conflicts, judgment of purpose and writing. Judgment of which source serves which purpose carries the most weight, since the unit teaches that credibility depends on use. Question points reward one question held constant. Source criteria look for authors, method and audience described for each. Conflict points go to funding or professional interests named where present. Purpose earns credit when each source is matched to a task. Consistent headings help. The four sources themselves, including the Cochrane review and AARC guideline, anchor the comparison.
NSG 660 Unit 3 help before you submit
Credibility comparisons in Unit 3 often slip by ranking sources only by type, as if a review always beats a trial for every purpose. Another frequent problem is changing the question between sources. Students often skip the consumer page or dismiss it, though patients read it first. Method is not described, so credibility rests on the publisher's name. Conflicts of interest are ignored. The guideline's age is not noted, though newer trials may have overtaken it. Purpose is not matched to each source. The audience of each source is left out. Certainty ratings in the review are not reported. Finally, say what each source is good for, because graders reward a comparison that shows judgment about use rather than a fixed ranking.
Get a NSG 660 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 3 instructions and the rubric from your NSG 660 classroom, and name the clinical question the four sources should answer. We write a custom example that fixes the question, chooses sources for contrast, puts the same five questions to each in order, and ends by assigning roles. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More NSG 660 papers and BSN samples
- NSG 660 Unit 1: Practice question refinement
- NSG 660 Unit 2: Single study read-through
- NSG 660 Unit 4: Study comparison grid
- NSG 660 Unit 5: Clinical guideline trace
- NSG 660 Unit 6: Practice change proposal
- NSG 660 Unit 7: Evidence presentation for colleagues
- NSG 660 Unit 8: Scholarly reading portfolio
- NSG 223 Unit 3: Chronic and acute overlap paper
- NSG 233 Unit 3: Rapid reassessment log
- NSG 298 Unit 3: Calculation error trace
- NSG 421 Unit 3: Documentation burden log
NSG 660 Unit 3 questions, answered
Does a source have to be peer reviewed to be usable?
Not for every purpose, and explaining why is part of the work. Professional guidance, government data and clinical guidelines are not peer reviewed in the journal sense and still carry weight for particular claims. What the comparison should refuse is a source whose authorship, funding or evidence cannot be established at all, and it should say which of the three is missing.
How recent does a source have to be?
It depends on the question rather than on a rule. A five year cut is a habit borrowed from search filters, and applying it to a question about anatomy or about a long settled intervention removes the best available work. Argue currency against what is being asked, and say when a field has moved enough that older evidence has been overtaken.
Can a source I found through a search engine be included?
Yes, and including one is often the point, since that is where a colleague or a patient starts. Read it against the same questions as the others and say what it would take for the page to be trustworthy. What matters is showing the difference in how the sources were built, not that every entry passes.
Where can I find a free NSG 660 Unit 3 sample paper?
The full NSG 660 Unit 3 source comparison is free on this page, four sources read against one question about incentive spirometry. A comparison of sources on your own question can be prepared on request.
How do I judge whether a health source is credible?
Ask who wrote it, how they reached their claim, who it was written for and what might shape it, then match it to your purpose. This sample applies those questions to a guideline, a trial, a review and a patient page.