This work of this assignment is based on the five studies retrieved from“Annotated Bibliography of Research Evidence.” ? Draft a critical appraisal of each of the five studies ? Review and summarize each study for appropriate measures of validity, reliability, and applicability based on the type of study/evidence you have compiled.

 Critical Appraisal of Research Evidence
Kim, H.Y., Lee, W.K., Na, S., Roh, Y.H., Shin, C.S., & Kim, J. (2016). The effects of chlorhexidine gluconate bathing on health care-associated infection in intensive care units: A meta-analysis. Journal of Critical Care, 32,126-137.
Validity
Evidently, the researchers used a systematic review approach with meta-analysis of selected previously conducted studies. The researchers used and reviewed 18 clinical studies to obtain evidence of the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate in critically ill patients and the risk of developing CLABSI, MRSA and VRE.
Based on the critical appraisal checklist developed by Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2015), the validity of the results of this study partly depends on a number of factors. First, it is evident that the researchers obtained the articles from three valid sources- PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Secondly, most of the reviewed studies used the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), an important approach for carrying out clinical studies. The authors have also provided a detailed description of the search strategy used to find the relevant research articles. Specifically, they employed the Cochrane Collaboration methodology to search and evaluate all the peer reviewed research articles relevant to daily CGH bathing and the risks of acquiring VRE, CLABSI and MRSA. Noteworthy, the Cochrane Collaboration methodology is effective in systematic review of randomized trials because it consists of more than 30,000 specialists involved in systematic review of trials for treatments, prevention and rehabilitation. In this article, Kim et al (2016) have used the methodology to search and include the most relevant articles for their study, which provides evidence of a highly valid research work.
Further, the systematic review provides a detailed description of how the researches assessed the validity of all the 18 studies used. Again, the Cochrane Collaboration methodology was used to review each of the 18 studies, where randomized assignment to study groups, methodological quality and complete follow-ups were considered as keywords in the search and inclusion criteria.
After systematically reviewing the 18 research articles, Kim and colleagues (2016) found that the risk ratios (at 95% confidence level) for MRSA, CLASBI and VRE with CHG bathing were 0.67, 0.45 and 0.60 respectively, which provides adequate evidence that the results were consistent across all the studies reviewed. In addition, the researchers checked each of the 18 articles for aggregate and individual data, which was then used in the analysis to find RR and RRR.
Results
In the study, Kim and colleagues (2016) found that the RRs for CLASBI, MRSA and VRE with CHG bathing were 0.45, 0.67 and 0.60 respectively (at p value of .05 and the level of confidence is 95% when compared with conventional care. In addition, the authors found that MRSA acquisition with CHG bathing provided a lower incidence compared with bathing with CHG only at RRR value of 0.81 and P value of .035.
In addition, for MRSA acquisition, bathing with