| Course | NUR-5300 Evidence-Based Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Evidence synthesis |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 5300 Module 4
Where the Studies Agree and Where They Stop: Synthesizing the Evidence on Inhaled Isopropyl Alcohol for Postoperative Nausea
Student Name
Master of Science in Nursing (MSN), Thomas Edison State University
NUR-5300: Evidence-Based Nursing Practice
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Where the Studies Agree and Where They Stop: Synthesizing the Evidence on Inhaled Isopropyl Alcohol for Postoperative Nausea
A question, a search record and one detailed appraisal came out of the first three modules. This paper synthesizes the four main sources: a Cochrane systematic review, two emergency department trials and a large postoperative trial. Synthesis is not a sequence of summaries. It asks what the studies show together, how confident the combined evidence allows us to be, and where the studies disagree. The question, unchanged since the first module, is about alcohol inhalation used alongside the usual rescue drug in adults recovering from outpatient surgery, judged on nausea and on second doses within half an hour.
The Sources Side by Side
The table summarizes the four sources by design, population, comparison and main finding, ordered from the highest level of evidence. Reading across it, the most consistent finding is that isopropyl alcohol relieves nausea faster than either placebo or a standard antiemetic in the short term. The least consistent finding concerns postoperative patients specifically, where one large trial found no benefit of alcohol over saline.
| Source | Design | Population and setting | Comparison | Main finding for isopropyl alcohol |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hines et al. (2018) | Cochrane review, 16 studies | Mostly postoperative adults | Placebo and standard antiemetics | Faster 50% reduction in nausea and less rescue use than standard antiemetics (moderate quality) |
| April et al. (2018) | Three-arm RCT, n = 120 | Emergency department adults | Oral ondansetron, with and without alcohol | About 30 mm greater VAS reduction than ondansetron alone; no added benefit from combining |
| Beadle et al. (2016) | RCT, n = 80 | Emergency department adults | Inhaled saline | Median nausea 3 vs 6 at 10 minutes |
| Hunt et al. (2013) | RCT, n = 301 | Postoperative adults | Inhaled saline | No significant benefit of alcohol; ginger and an oil blend were effective |
Where the Evidence Agrees
Three of the four sources agree that isopropyl alcohol reduces nausea within minutes. In the emergency department trial by Beadle et al. (2016), patients who inhaled isopropyl alcohol had a median nausea score of three, compared with six for saline, ten minutes after treatment. In the later three-arm trial by April et al. (2018), the two alcohol arms outperformed oral ondansetron given by itself over thirty minutes, and fewer of their patients needed rescue drugs. Pooling studies largely from surgical populations, Hines et al. (2018) reported, with evidence it graded as moderate, that alcohol inhalation brought nausea down by half more quickly than standard drugs and meant fewer rescue doses. The agreement extends to safety: none of the studies reported meaningful adverse effects from brief inhalation from a prep pad.
The agreement is also clinically coherent. A quick-acting inhaled agent would be expected to help most in the first minutes, before an oral or even intravenous drug reaches full effect, and that is exactly where the trials found their largest differences. The timing pattern makes the finding more believable than a benefit appearing only hours later would be.
Where the Evidence Stops Agreeing
The disagreement lies in the postoperative trial. Hunt et al. (2013) enrolled more than three hundred postoperative patients with nausea and compared several inhaled agents with saline; ginger and a blend of essential oils reduced nausea, but isopropyl alcohol did not perform significantly better than saline. Several explanations are possible. Postoperative nausea after anesthesia and opioids may respond differently from undifferentiated emergency department nausea. The trial's outcome measure and timing differed from the emergency trials. And because saline has little smell, while alcohol and other oils do, expectation effects may have varied between arms. The review by Hines et al. (2018) itself rated much of the evidence as low or moderate quality, citing heterogeneity in outcome measures and time points.
The disagreement matters most for the question as written. The two trials with the strongest positive findings for alcohol were conducted in emergency departments; the trial in surgical patients was neutral for alcohol. The evidence therefore supports benefit for acute nausea generally but leaves real uncertainty about postoperative nausea in particular, which is the population of interest. No trial tested alcohol added to intravenous rescue antiemetics in a recovery unit.
For the practice question, the most useful response to this disagreement is not to choose the trials we prefer but to measure the effect in our own patients, which the later modules plan to do.
Strength of the Body of Evidence
Judged as a whole, the evidence is of low to moderate quality. Its strengths are the presence of a systematic review, several randomized trials, consistency of short-term benefit in emergency settings and an excellent safety profile. Its weaknesses are small sample sizes in most trials, likely unblinding because of alcohol's smell, heterogeneous outcome measures and a discordant result in the most relevant population. Applying a common evidence hierarchy, the body of evidence provides moderate support that isopropyl alcohol relieves acute nausea and weaker, conflicting support for postoperative nausea specifically.
Another way to state the strength of the evidence is to ask what a new trial would need to show to change the conclusion. A large, well-blinded trial in recovery unit patients finding no benefit would move the balance against the practice; a positive one would settle the main uncertainty. Either result would be valuable, which is itself a sign that the current evidence is not yet conclusive.
Implications for the Next Module
The synthesis points toward a cautious recommendation. Because the intervention is cheap, safe and simple, and because the most rigorous pooled evidence favors it, offering isopropyl alcohol as an adjunct while the ordered rescue antiemetic is prepared is a reasonable practice change, provided it does not delay standard treatment and its effect in our own population is measured. The conflicting postoperative trial argues against presenting the practice as proven, and against replacing rescue medication with alcohol. The next module will translate that conclusion into a practice change with an owner, a measure and a link to the existing guideline.
The implication is deliberately modest, because the evidence is.
References
April, M. D., Oliver, J. J., Davis, W. T., Ong, D., Simon, E. M., Ng, P. C., & Hunter, C. J. (2018). Aromatherapy versus oral ondansetron for antiemetic therapy among adult emergency department patients: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 72(2), 184-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.01.016
Beadle, K. L., Helbling, A. R., Love, S. L., April, M. D., & Hunter, C. J. (2016). Isopropyl alcohol nasal inhalation for nausea in the emergency department: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 68(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.09.031
Hines, S., Steels, E., Chang, A., & Gibbons, K. (2018). Aromatherapy for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(3), Article CD007598. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007598.pub3
Hunt, R., Dienemann, J., Norton, H. J., Hartley, W., Hudgens, A., Stern, T., & Divine, G. (2013). Aromatherapy as treatment for postoperative nausea: A randomized trial. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 117(3), 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824a0b1c
Reading the NUR 5300 Module 4 assignment instructions
Module 4 of NUR-5300 is where the appraised studies are weighed as a group. Most versions want an evidence table, narrative grouped around findings instead of papers, a verdict on how strong and how consistent the studies are, explanation of conflicting results, and a statement of what the evidence supports for practice. Some sections require a specific grading system. Look at the assignment page in the TESU classroom for the number of studies required, the table format and whether the synthesis should end with a recommendation or leave that to the next module. A brief statement of how confident you are, and why, belongs at the end.
How this NUR 5300 Module 4 example is built
The synthesis opens by restating the question and defining synthesis as more than summaries. An evidence table orders four sources by level and ends with the discordant postoperative trial. A section on agreement brings together the two emergency trials and the review, with their main numbers and the shared safety finding. A section on disagreement explains the neutral postoperative result with three possible reasons and shows why it matters for the specific population in the question. A strength section grades the body of evidence, and the final section draws a cautious implication that prepares the translation module. The table and the narrative were checked against each other number by number.
Where the marks sit in the NUR 5300 Module 4 rubric
Marks in a graduate synthesis follow a correct evidence table, organization by findings rather than by study, analysis of consistency and conflict, judgment of overall strength, relevance to the clinical question, and writing. Mentors give heavy weight to how conflicting results are handled: they should be presented, explained and connected to the question, not omitted. Grading the overall evidence with a recognized system or clear reasoning earns credit. The implication for practice should be proportional to the strength of the evidence. A synthesis that overstates certainty, or that never reaches a conclusion, tends to land in the middle band. Explaining why studies disagree, not only that they do, is often decisive.
NUR 5300 Module 4 help from the desk
The most common weakness is a synthesis that is really a series of summaries, one paragraph per study. Organize by what the studies show together and let each paragraph cite several. Another frequent problem is ignoring a study that disagrees with the rest; a discordant trial is often the most informative part of the evidence. Explain it. Students also overstate strength, calling evidence strong when trials are small or unblinded. State the quality honestly. Cross-check each figure in the table against the paragraph that cites it. Send your appraisals and prompt, and a synthesis can be written for you at the desk. Finally, keep your conclusion as cautious as your weakest key study requires.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 5300 and Master of Science in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 5300 Module 1: Clinical Question Development
- NUR 5300 Module 2: Evidence Search Strategy
- NUR 5300 Module 3: Randomized Trial Appraisal
- NUR 5300 Module 5: Translating Evidence Into Practice
- NUR 5300 Module 6: Evidence-Based Practice Proposal
- NUR 6400 Module 1: Cellular Injury Case: Iron Overload in HFE Hemochromatosis
- NUR 5310 Module 6: Informatics Project Proposal
- NUR 6410 Module 4: Pharmacogenomics Case: CYP2C19 and Clopidogrel After a Stent
- NUR 5820 Module 3: Staffing Change Cost Analysis
NUR 5300 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 5300 Module 4 sample paper?
The complete synthesis is above, evidence table included, with a margin note on each sheet. It weighs four sources on inhaled isopropyl alcohol; organize your own synthesis by findings in the same way.
How do I handle a study that disagrees with the others?
Present it, suggest reasons for the disagreement such as differences in population, outcome or timing, and explain how it affects confidence in the overall conclusion. Leaving it out weakens the synthesis.
What should an evidence table include?
At minimum the source, its design, who was studied and where, what was compared, how outcomes were measured and what was found, plus its level or quality if your rubric asks. Order rows by level of evidence and keep the table consistent with your text.
How strong does evidence need to be for a practice change?
It depends on the risk, cost and burden of the change. A safe, cheap and simple intervention may be reasonable on moderate evidence if its effect is measured locally, while a risky or costly change needs stronger evidence.
Should the synthesis include a recommendation?
Follow your directions. Many sections ask for an implication or tentative recommendation here and a full practice change proposal later. Keep the recommendation proportional to the evidence.