Evidence evaluation methods assignment

March 1, 2022

Evidence evaluation methods assignment

Evidence evaluation methods assignment

Evidence evaluation methods assignment

This is a discussion post, about 250 WORDS, tittle page not require In- text citation is required original work please, scholarly references are required for this assignment, website source strongly preferred.

QUESTION 2

Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods.

Two basic types of inclusion criteria are typically used in systematic reviews. The first set includes criteria pertaining to publication characteristics, such as full-article publication (not just an abstract), peer-reviewed publication, year of publication sufficiently recent (to ensure exclusion of outdated technologies), English-language publication (depending on the topic), and exclusion of duplicate publications (to avoid double-counting study participants) unless duplicate studies contain unique outcome data. These criteria are usually unaffected by subsequent decisions regarding “best evidence” and analysis.

The second set includes criteria pertaining to study design, study conduct and reporting, and study relevance to the Key Question(s). These criteria are context sensitive and require clinical and methodological judgments from the review team; in addition, the decision to use certain criteria may be influenced by the limitations of the available evidence (discussed in more detail later in this section). Given their importance, our focus in task 1 was this latter set of inclusion criteria.

Figure 1 illustrates the logical flow for application of inclusion criteria from a best evidence perspective. Note that this figure depicts a sequence of decisions rather than a hierarchy based on study design. The layout of the figure (with randomization at the top) may give an unintended impression: that the most important consideration is whether to limit the evidence to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In reality, that may not be the most important consideration, particularly for Key Questions that do not address causation. The figure is structured in this manner because the decision to require or not require RCTs is often the first one made, and therefore leads naturally to other types of decisions about the inclusion criteria.

Figure 1 illustrates the logical flow for application of inclusion criteria from a best evidence perspective. The first questions asked are related to study design; the initial question at the top of the chart asks whether randomization is required. If the answer is yes, one moves down the left pathway asking a series of additional questions, beginning with three questions about blinding: is blinding required of study participants, of providers, and/or of outcome assessors? Then the reviewer asks three more questions related to

Evidence evaluation methods assignment

Evidence evaluation methods assignment

study design. Is an adequate washout period required? Is direct comparison required? Is baseline comparability required? After these questions are answered, the reviewer moves to questions related to study conduct and reporting criteria, and lastly to questions related to relevance criteria (that is, relevance of study participants, interventions, and settings specified in the Key Questions). If the answer to the initial question about randomization is no, the reviewer moves down the right branch of the pathway to ask whether an independent control group is required. If the answer is yes, the reviewer asks five more questions related to study design. Is a concurrent comparison group required? Is an adequate washout period required? Is baseline comparability required? Is prospective planning required? Is consecutive enrollment required? After these questions are answered, the reviewer moves to questions related to study conduct and reporting criteria, and lastly to questions related to relevance criteria. If the answer to the independent control group question is no, the reviewer asks four more questions related to study design. Is any comparison required? Is an adequate washout period required? Is prospective planning required? Is consecutive enrollment required? After these questions are answered, the reviewer moves to questions related to study conduct and reporting criteria, and last to questions related to relevance criteria.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Evidence evaluation methods assignment

Figure 1
Process chart of application of inclusion criteria*. *This figure depicts a sequence of decisions about study inclusion criteria. Randomization is listed first because often the decision to require or not require RCTs is the first one made, and therefore (more…)

The relevance criteria involve whether the study participants, interventions, and settings are relevant to the Key Question. For example, suppose a Key Question specifies that the population of interest is adults with type 2 diabetes, and some studies enrolled not only these participants but also some adults with type 1 diabetes (and only presented combined results for the two populations). The reviewer must decide whether the combined results are sufficiently relevant to the Key Question. By “relevance,” we do not mean relevance to typical clinical practice, which is a concept we refer to as applicability, and is generally addressed at a later stage in the review (see task 2 in this paper).

Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 list inclusion criteria and the factors that may affect a reviewer’s decision to use each criterion. For example, if no RCTs are identified, the reviewer may consider inclusion of nonrandomized studies (if the risk of bias is not too high). Likewise, if the outcome is a harm related to treatment, the reviewer may believe that nonrandomized studies still provide useful information. This is not to imply that well-designed studies measuring harms are suboptimal for determining the true risks of harms. Rather, in some instances, less reliable evidence (even case reports) of rare harms associated with an intervention may be useful in decisionmaking.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ALL NURSING ESSAYS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT  ordernowcc-blue
Posted in nursing by Clarissa