Systematic reviews are done in such a way that the results of multiple primary study cases that are strictly related to each other are synthesized. Reply 1
There are two methods when it comes to evaluating the evidence in nursing. These methods are:
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Systematic reviews are responsible for summarizing the results that are obtained from
research that has been carried out, in our case, controlled trials in the health care sector (Gough
& Richardson, 2018). It is from these summary that valid and reliable conclusions can be made on the matter under trial. Systematic reviews are done in such a way that the results of multiple
primary study cases that are strictly related to each other are synthesized by the use of strategies
that are meant to eliminate biases and error margin (Gough & Richardson, 2018).
Meta-analysis is a combination of numerical data from different primary sources that focused
on the same objective, to produce a single approximation based on all the sources (Burgess,
Thompson & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration, 2016). This estimation is more accurate
because due to its nature of analyzing data from multiple sources. The researcher is in a position
to explain any inconsistencies in the case of their occurrence, quantify, and explore the
relationship between the data (Burgess, Thompson & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration, 2016).
Furthermore, it is an efficient way of using pre-existing data.
Systematic reviews are well-detailed and transparent, whereas meta-analysis is simply
analyzing data implying the latter is a more time-consuming procedure (Hyun Kang, 2018).
There are times where systematic reviews would contain statistical data, but a meta-analyses
cannot include any overviews. Systematic reviews can consist of a narrative synthesis that
combines data that are very different, while meta-analysis cannot be used to analyze data that vary from each other. For instance, the age of children in a specific region only, without some other cases.
Burgess, S., Thompson, S. G., & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. (2016). Methods for meta-
analysis of individual participant data from Mendelian randomization studies with binary
outcomes. Statistical methods in medical research, 25(1), 272-293.
Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean
journal of anesthesiology, 71(2), 103.
Gough, D., & Richardson, M. (2018). Systematic reviews. In Advanced Research Methods for
Applied Psychology (pp. 75-87). Routledge.
Reply | Quote & Reply
Re: Topic 3 DQ 2
Topic 3 DQ 2
Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods.
According to Joseph (2019), the two methods of evaluating evidence are quantitative and qualitative approach. The quantitative methodology entails assessing the data and comparing the various measurements used in the study under consideration. Standard deviation, mean or average, and other statistical parameters are some of the metrics used in quantitative evidence evaluation. Furthermore, the quantitative requirements must be measured or use formal procedures for prediction, ensuring objectivity of the outcome and the variables used.
The assessment of the processes, meanings, experiences, and perceptions that research participants, including patients, have toward a particular variable under review is part of the conceptual framework used in qualitative ways of assessing evidence. As a result, no quantitative parameters are used in the qualitative method. Interpretation and application of emphatic comprehensions are used to assess relevant information, implying that the findings and variables are reliant on the research study’s context.
Joseph. M (2019), Methods of evaluating evidence in evidence based practice nursing. Retrieved from https://thenursingace.com/methods-of-evaluating-evidence-in-evidence-based-practice-nursing/