Practice Week 6 DQ1: Gaps in the Literature Review Findings

Topic 6 DQ 1 
When reviewing the literature and different types of evidence, there are often gaps in the findings. Are such gaps a help or a hindrance when wanting to create a change?
FYI
1. Presenters' Corner
Study the "Presenters' Corner" page, located on the Western Institute of Nursing website.
http://winursing(dot)org/~mcneilp/?query=Presenters+Corner
Example from class mate
Re:Topic 6 DQ 1
Gaps that are found in reviewing scientific literature and other types of evidence can be disheartening when you are searching for a positive change based from best practice. Scientific studies can be very expensive and time consuming and not every topic gets its fair share of study trials. On the positive side, when a researcher is reviewing literature and discovers gaps, it could just mean that they will need to reword their PICOT question; another reason could be that, what they wish to research already has a better practice unbeknownst to the researcher. A gap could also mean that there is an opportunity to expand research on the topic. Identifying the gaps could reveal that the researcher has searched thoroughly through the area of study and produced their own interpretation and suggestion on how future studies may carry on or what actions could be taken in order to fill those gaps to improve the topic outlook (Alversson & Sandburg, 2011). On the other hand, gaps could be a hindrance as there could be a high demand for best practice in an area, yet there is no research to support its use, thus corporations or organizations would not want to take on an action that will cost them time and money that is not proven beneficial through scientific means (“Identifying gaps,” n.d.).
I read an article that discusses the hindrance of gaps in research when seeking evidence for EBP. Traditional practices may be questioned, yet there may not be evidence to support the practice, nor enough to support a change. One example provided is choosing the size of an IV catheter to administer blood. Traditional practice is the use of large bore needles to administer blood to prevent hemolysis, yet there are a few studies evidencing safe administration of blood with smaller bore needles, there is little evidence to support a practice change (Makic, Martin, Burns, Philbrick, & Rauen, 2013). One issue that I commonly have is the use of sodium modeling during dialysis. A literature search reveals evidence that supports the use of sodium modeling to remove fluid while minimizing hypotension and cramping, while other literature warns against using sodium modeling. If I were to perform an EBP project, I would have to do a thorough literature review and identify validity and reliability before implementing a change in practice. 
References
Academia Stack Exchange. (2014). How to get better at identifying research gaps? Retrieved from http://academia(dot)stackexchange(dot)com/questions/19034/how-to-get-better-at-identifying-research-gaps
Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J., 2011. Generating Research Questions Through Problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), pp.247-271.
Martin, Burns, Philbric, & raven (2013). The Role of Research and Power to Knowingly Participate in Change. Retrieved from:www(dot)nursinglibrary(dot)org/vhl/handle/10755/338392