Technological advancement in healthcare has seen improved outcomes in patient care. The increased utilization of evidence-based practices in care has also changed how patients feel about services they receive from their health care providers. Evidence-based practice involves the process of incorporating evidence from best research with patient values and clinical expertise to inform healthcare decisions (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013). Reliable research provides the evidence required in ensuring variations in the delivery of healthcare are reduced and best practice is achieved. Given the time constraints for clinicians, it becomes difficult finding time to search evidence during consultations. This raises the need to design methods to facilitate easy incorporation of these research findings into practice. The methods address the challenge of extracting evidence from large volumes of articles in health research by synthesizing research findings from multiple studies and developing clinical practice guidelines.
Meta-analysis and systematic review are among the approaches used in the evaluation of evidence-based practice. In a meta-analysis, data from comparable primary studies is quantitatively analyzed and reviewed for purposes of integrating the findings (Ganeshkumar & Gopalakrishnan, 2013). On the other hand, a systematic review is a protocol-driven process whose objective is to assess the validity of the findings of studies and synthesize the evidence in those findings so as to guide decision making (Oh, 2016). Whereas a meta-analysis summarizes data from several resources to help guide research and develop guidelines, a systematic review analyzes all relevant study results to assess the effectiveness of a treatment intervention under evaluation. A meta-analysis involves only the statistical approach in extracting and combining data to make a summary of the results (Salanti et al., 2014). On the other hand, a systematic review involves in entirety the collection, review, and presentation of all available evidence for purposes of providing reliable estimates so as to make defensible conclusions. In addition to evaluating the clinical effectiveness of evidence, both methods of evaluation can provide insights on where knowledge lacks hence a guide for future research.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In conclusion, evaluation of EBP is necessary for measuring the quality of evidence in terms of its effectiveness, validity, and the extent to which it minimizes bias. Reviews and meta-analyses are equally important in combining comparable individual study findings thus ensuring the effectiveness of nursing care interventions. In both cases, the results of the reviews as guided by the Preferred Items for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) are documented for use as protocols, public consumption, and publication as journals (Oh, 2016). These evaluation methods also promote planning, collaboration, reduced errors and discourage arbitrary decision making.
References
Ganeshkumar, P., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care , 2 (1), 9. doi:10.4103/2249-4863.109934
Oh, E. G. (2016). Synthesizing quantitative evidence for evidence-based nursing: Systematic review. Asian Nursing Research , 10 (2), 89-93. doi:10.1016/j.anr.2016.05.001
Salanti, G., Del Giovane, C., Chaimani, A., Caldwell, D. M., & Higgins, J. P. (2014). Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis. PLoS One , 9 (7), e99682. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099682
