Response to peers Dq two Capstone

Response to peers Dq two Capstone Response to peers Dq two Capstone Response one: Evaluation of evidence is a key aspect of every research and there are multiple ways of evaluating research data. It is very important to implement and evaluate the evidence-based practice on the collected pieces of evidence. Two common ways of evaluating the pieces of evidence are (1) Systemic Review and (2) Meta-analysis. The hallmark of systemic reviews is that they seek to reduce bias at all stages of the review process. Not all systemic reviews include meta-analysis, but all meta-analyses are found in systemic reviews. Meta-analysis is quantitative in nature, whereas systemic reviews summarize results of the studies such as controlled trials. Meta-analysis is a statistical method for incorporating and summarizing older quantitative researches as a prelude to previewing them, however, systemic research provides answers to definite research questions via the collection and summarizing reliable evidence from the research which aligns with previously identified criteria for eligibility.

Meta-analysis adopts a statistical approach to coordinate findings from various researches in order to increase reliability, increase the accuracy of the estimates and resolve ambiguities where conflicts exist. On the other hand, systemic analysis summarizes the results of available healthcare researches. These are control trials and provide reliable evidence of the superiority of healthcare interventions (Cochrane Consumers Network, 2018). Response to peers Dq two Capstone Similarities- Both meta-analysis and systemic review are at the top of the evidence pyramid where relevance and quality of the literature and evidence are in high quality due to their study design reduces bias and produce more reliable findings. Differences- Systemic Review reviews the formulated questions that use systemic and reproducible methods to identify, select and critically appraise all relevant research and to collect and analyze data from the studies (Curtin University, 2018).

Whereas meta-analysis is a statistical/quantitative review, epidemiological study design used to assess previous research studies to derive a conclusion about the body of research (Haidich, 2010). The systemic review refers to the entire process of selecting, evaluating and synthesizing all available evidence, while meta-analysis refers to the statistical approach to combining the data reviews from a systemic review (Northcentral University, 2018). References Cochrane Consumers Network. (2018). What is Systemic Review? Cochrane Handbook for Review of Systemic Interventions. Retrieved from https://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index…. Curtin University. (2018). Systemic reviews: What is a systemic review? Retrieved from http://libguides.library.curtin.edu.au/c.php?g=202420&p=1332858 Haidich, A. (2010).

Meta-analysis in medical research. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049418/ Northcentral University. (2018). Systemic review and meta-analysis. https://ncu.libguides.com/researchprocess/systemat… Response two: Evaluating evidence is crucial for decision making, especially in public health. In healthcare, decisions need to be made with the best available evidence to ensure positive patient outcomes. One way to organize the different types of evidence involved in evidence-based practice research is the levels of the evidence pyramid. The levels of evidence pyramid provide a way to visualize both, the quality of evidence and the amount of evidence available. ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for clinical research, thus having a high impact on clinical guidelines and our daily patients’ care (Faraoni & Schaefer, 2016). A key feature of this design is a random assignment. Randomized Controlled Trials have many strengths such as strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, a well-defined intervention, and predefined endpoints.

However, these strict criteria lead to the inclusion of a very small proportion of the patients, which may not reflect the real world. In RTCs, participants are equally distributed among two groups, the ones that receive the treatment and a control group that does not. In an observational study, the researcher measures (but cannot control) an independent variable and assesses whether that independent variable has a significant association with some dependent, or “outcome (Reinhardt, 2010). Contrary to RTCs, observational studies lack strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and a well-defined intervention which makes the interpretation of the results difficult. Observational studies are useful to analyze behaviors and treatments which have never been evaluated in clinical trials, such as in highly unethical topics that may endanger the safety or the participants.

Another benefit of observational studies is that they are an easily accessible and cheap method to look at the safety and effectiveness of different therapeutic strategies, without the need to spend a lot of money randomizing large amounts of patients (Faraoni & Schaefer, 2016). Reference: Faraoni, D., & Schaefer, S. T. (2016). Randomized controlled trials vs. observational studies: why not just live together? BMC Anesthesiology, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-016-0265-3 Reinhardt JP. (2010). Research Methods in Evidence-Based Practice: Understanding the Evidence. Generations, 34(1), 36–42. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/lo… Response Three: Evaluating evidence different methods: There are several methods of evaluating evidence methods are present, but the two most common methods of evaluating evidence are Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews.

These two methods can help in the determination of the relevance and validity of the evidence. During the evaluating evidences both these systematic reviews and meta-analyses methods aswellas similar and different. Similarities: Both the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses are considered the highest quality of evidence for clinical decision making and can be used above all the other methods of evaluating evidence. Both the methods for evaluating evidence are similar because they involve the collection of data from different sources and summarizing the all the evidence and results of the studies. Differences: While systematic review collects and summarizes all the empirical evidence, the meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of the studies. Second, Meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the numerical results from such studies, if it is possible to do. On the other hand, Systematic review is a formal, systematic and structured approach to review all the relevant literature on a topic.

Third, the rationale for Meta-analysis is that through the combination of samples from different studies the overall sample size is increased, while the rationale for systematic reviews is that when data is pooled together from different sources a greater reliability would be obtained. Reference: Melnyk BM, Fineout- Overholt E, Mays MZ. The evidence based practice beliefs and implementation scales: psychometric properties of two new instruments. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2008;5(4):208–216 Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10