4-There are various in which a person can be able to evaluate whether the evidence they have and are using in the practice is true or not. It is always important to evaluate evidence so as to be able to understand what type of information one is using. Two methods that one can be able to use to evaluate evidence in the nursing practice include systematic reviews and meta analyses (Melnyk, 2011). Systematic reviews are a form of literature review that involves the use of systematic methods to be able to collect and analyze secondary information presented in a document. The method involves trying to understand whether the data presented in the source has followed the right steps when being developed. Meta analyses on the other hand is a method through which the researcher is able to evaluate the credibility of data being presented in various quantitative sources. According to research, one cannot be able to use the results of one research activity to implement an intervention. There is need for them to use several sources. Meta analyses allows the research to combine the results of various sources to find the commonality in them.
One of the main difference in both methods is the focus the methods. Meta-analysis focuses on the researcher being able to analyze quantitative data from various sources. Systematic reviews on the other and focus on both qualitative and quantitative data to come up with results (Uman, 2011). The main difference is therefore what type of data each deals with. Systematic reviews follow a certain procedure in order to be able to come up with a result. This is not the same as in the case of meta analyses where the focus is on research results of article that are investigating the same topic. The similarity in both is that they are able to help the researcher to compare various forms of data and come up with a result. They allow the researcher to compare the results of multiple research and studies.
Melnyk, B. M., (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: a guide to best practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Uman L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l’Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent, 20(1), 57–59.
5-Two methods of evaluating evidence are Case control study and Systematic Review. In Case control study Researchers choose people with a particular result (the cases) and interview the groups or check their records to ascertain what different experiences they had. They compare the odds of having an experience with the outcome to the odds of having an experience without the outcome. in Systematic Review a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a particular clinical issue. The researchers use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific criteria. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The systematic review may also include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis.In case studies, the study start with the identification of a group of individuals with a particular health outcome while in stystematic review summarises the results of available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. They are both alike because there is always a control group to compare data.
Admin. (2013, June 21). Introduction to study designs – case-control studies. Retrieved from https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/e-learning/epidemiology/practitioners/introduction-study-design-ccs
Nursing: Evaluate Evidence. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://guides.pcc.edu/c.php?g=210096&p=1385961
What is a systematic review? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://consumers.cochrane.org/what-systematic-review
6-A meta-analysis of all well-done studies of a given clinical topic (using participant-level data if available). Define criteria for which of the published studies are actually entered into this meta-analysis (e.g., only randomized blinded trials, or any direct comparison studies, etc.). This represents the reference standard. Limitations of this approach include the lack of agreement on reliable validity standards for meta-analysis and the possibility of incorporation bias due to testing the validity of a subset of evidence using the whole evidence as gold standard. In some instances, a small evidence base (consisting of one or a few well-designed, appropriately powered studies) may be sufficient to reach the most appropriate conclusion.
A literature search could identify and compare the conclusions of different systematic reviews that used different prioritization strategies to address the same clinical question. The advantage of this method is its relative ease of implementation. Provided a reviewer can find published reviews that addressed the same clinical question using different strategies, the comparison of the reviews’ conclusions can be done relatively quickly. Although this would be the least labor-intensive method, it has some drawbacks. First, it may be difficult to identify clinical questions where different systematic reviews used different prioritization strategies. Second, the systematic reviews may have differed in other methodological areas, such as risk-of-bias assessment and strength of evidence assessment, which could then lead to differences in conclusions among reviews.
A reviewer could identify a single existing systematic review, determine its evidence prioritization strategy (by examining the report inclusion criteria), and test other prioritization strategies on the same evidence base, while keeping all other methodology the same. The advantage of this method over the method above is that other methodological aspects of review (e.g., risk-of-bias assessment) would no longer confound the comparison. However, this method is more labor-intensive than the method above, as it requires performing independent research synthesis using the other prioritization strategies
Treadwill, JR; Signh, S; Taliti, R. (2011). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A Framework for “Best Evidence” Approaches in Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56652/
Reply | Quote & Reply