IndexWeaknessesStrengthsImplications of the EBP study on nursing practicesThe practice of applying research findings in the delivery of health services is critical to ensuring that healthcare and patient outcomes have been improved . Over time, nursing science has continued to improve in depth and breadth, paving the way for evidence to guide our practices in areas such as pressure ulcer prevention, pain and transitional care. However, the application of this scientific knowledge has proven to be challenging when it comes to its application in different fields. To overcome the final hurdle of translation, it is necessary to promote the adoption and use of research findings at the point where health services are provided (Avorn, 2010). Nurses have been found to make great efforts to incorporate the use of evidence into their practices. However, the struggle to provide quality care and improve health care outcomes has always been considered unsuccessful because it is subject to delays where scientific results do not reach patients in time (Doughety and Conway, 2008). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay EBP is a very critical part of quality care. It refers to the judicious use of the best empirical evidence together with clinical expertise and the value of patients in guiding healthcare decisions (Sackett et al., 2000). In contrast to this, implementation science refers to the process of examining the constantly changing methods, entanglements and factors that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices by authorities. Therefore, integrating evidence into healthcare delivery is what is called EBP while translational science refers to the study of how to facilitate the use of evidence in medicines. The extent to which adoption of EBPs occurs is subject to how the EBP is communicated to involved and interested parties in the context of practice and the type of evidence-based argument (Titler, 2011). There are some principles that guide the use of evidence-based practice in nursing. They include; consideration of the context and the involvement of healthcare personnel, as well as improvement of the evidence. The second principle is that there should be an illustration through quantitative or qualitative data from the context. The third principle refers to the need for an organization to invest in the skills and tools needed to achieve a culture of evidence-based practice, encouraging questions and systems that make it easy to do the right thing. The fourth principle is that the context of practice must be addressed and the step-by-step implementation of the process must also be addressed. The last principle refers to the need to evaluate the process and results of implementation. Weaknesses The entire spectrum of clinical, biomedical and general healthcare professionals always needs good evidence. However, the kind of good evidence that can be applied to all patients and all care settings is not available for much of medicine today. It is stated that more than half of medical treatments are not yet validated by medical trials. A US Institute of Medicine committee states that strong to modest evidence exists for only about 4% of services offered, while more than 50% of services have no or extremely weak evidence (Titler, 2011). In recent years there has been an intensification of clinical services andof research with the further increase in technology. However, the spectrum of diseases has also broadened, which shows that there is a large gap that research needs to fill. There is a major challenge in developing a systematic review of both clinical and healthcare topics. Furthermore, the available evidence is rarely infinite. The existence of trust in certain certain evidence depends largely on the robustness of the research and the quality and quantity of analysis and synthesis carried out on it (Avorn, 2010). It is known that users always reach and arrive at a personal judgment about how good a practice, a technology, and the science behind a certain work are. Personal judgments can differ considerably in the complexity and lack of bias on which they were constructed. This can be done by contesting the most applicable evidence for the evaluation, examining only some available evidence, having a disagreement regarding inclusion factors such as cost and patient satisfaction in diagnosis, treatment or even the effectiveness of a method; and differing on the quality of the evidence. Such disagreements can then lead to public concern, indicating that there is something negative in the evidence or even that the experts had vested interests, so they cannot be trusted. Strengths The strength of the evidence can be defined in some way by taking into account factors such as the size, robustness and credibility of the available evidence. In this sense, there is the incorporation of judgment on the quality of the study which implies the level of confidence one has in whether a result is true and whether others have been able to detect the same result through the use of studies different or even different people. Other ideas used by doctors are; how close the discovery is to the idea, how much effect it has and its applicability (Avorn, 2010). The methodology for judging the strength of available evidence uses the measure of internal validity with which studies conducted on a given population provide valid information. It also focuses on external validity, which refers to the extent of relevance of studies and how studies can be generalized to serve a larger patient population. Consistency or coherence refers to the extent to which a piece of evidence makes sense with the fundamental prototype of the medical condition (Eccles and Mittman, 2006). Strong evidence stands out from the rest by the magnitude of the effect or impact reported. on the research maps. Such evidence cannot easily be confused with the nature and extent of its effects and outcomes (Eccles and Mittman, 2006). Solid evidence proves to be much more useful in favor of detailed clinical interventions than weak evidence since its use, in any case, leads to spectacular results. When these factors are considered, the chances of harm are minimal, which gives this test an advantage over others. Strength and quality are practically and conceptually related. Rather, more coherent and coherent evidence has a greater advantage over the others. Clinical case evidence is most desirable. This is because such tests are bound to make more sense since their procedure of application to the situation in question can be easily followed and used to obtain desirable results. Furthermore, such evidence is not easily contested and can win the hearts of many people (both doctors and patients) (Doughety and Conway, 2008). Validity (both external and internal) is also another advantage a piece of evidence may possess which makes it strong evidence. Validity in this sense refers to how well the evidence provides valid information about the case in question (Doughety.