p2

 Deactivated

Wendy Santos 

1 posts

Re:Topic 3 DQ 2

                To evaluate whether evidence is valid for meeting the research objective, it is imperative to produce some level of proof (Taylor & Hignett, 2014). When evaluating evidence, consideration to relevance, category, and format are all included, and involves an understanding of study methodologies, reliability and validity, as well as how these apply to specific study types (Taylor & Hignett, 2014). When evaluating evidence, you should always try to find material with the highest quality of evidence, and this can be done when looking at the hierarchy of evidence for quantitative study (Taylor & Hignett, 2014).   The higher the study type on the pyramid, the more likely it is that the research is valid, and the further you move up the pyramid the fewer studies are available because of cost to conduct such extensive studies (Taylor & Hignett, 2014). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses are considered the highest quality of evidence when conducting a study and should be used above other study types (Taylor & Hignett, 2014). Qualitative studies are not included in the Hierarchy of Evidence, they do have a levels of evidence to determine guidance in choosing studies with stronger evidence, but does not guaranty (Taylor & Hignett, 2014).

                Meta-analysis is one to evaluate evidence by combining data from different research using a statistical process that combines findings from all the studies (Haidich, 2010). Evidence-based medicine may be defined as the systematic, quantitative, preferentially experimental approach to obtaining and using medical information (Haidich, 2010). Therefore, meta-analysis, a statistical procedure that integrates the results of several independent studies, plays a central role in evidence-based medicine (Haidich, 2010). This approach may be considered the "gold standard" in meta-analysis because it offers advantages over analyses using aggregated data, including a greater ability to validate the quality of data and to conduct appropriate statistical analysis (Haidich, 2010).

                Randomized controlled trial is another way to evaluate evidence and is the best way to study the safety and efficacy of new treatments (Kabisch, Ruckes, Seibert-Grafe, Blettner, 2011). The evidence provided by the results of RCT is used to answer patient related questions and is required by governmental regulatory bodies in order to prove evidence is correct (Kabisch et al, 2011). There are multiple different study designs that can be used in the presents of higher level evidence depending on the type of clinical question to be answered (Kabisch et al, 2011). The two methods of meta-analysis and randomized controlled trial, differ in the use of statistical processes for meta-analysis, and planning, conductance, analysis, and reporting for RCT’s used in causal relationship between intervention and effect (Kabish et al, 2011).

                In order to support your evidence for reliability and credibility you can use expert evidence, which is usually academics, practitioners, or researchers in the area of study, and is considered to be high quality evidence (CEBM, 2009). Another method used sometime is anecdotal evidence, which is verbal or written evidence that comes from third parties or hearsay, rather than informed and controlled research (CEBM, 2009). In academic writings anecdotal evidence is rarely valued, and is mostly used to support something which has already been established (CEBM, 2009). There is a big difference in these two methods of evidence as one is highly valued with expert evidence, when anecdotal evidence is not highly valued (CEBM, 2009). Once evidence is acquired it is important to evaluate its level and quality, and there are multiple scales to use depending on certain rationale for each scale and uses certain rational for each scale and criteria (CEBM, 2009).

 

Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [CEBM]. (2009). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine-Levels of evidence. Retrieved from http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research.  Hippokratia,  14(Suppl 1), 29–37.

Kabisch, M., Ruckes, C., Seibert-Grafe, M., & Blettner, M. (2011). Randomized Controlled Trials: Part 17 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications.  Deutsches Ärzteblatt International,  108(39), 663–668. http://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2011.0663

Taylor, E., & Hignett, S. (2014). Evaluating Evidence: Defining Levels and Quality Using Critical Appraisal Mixed Methods Tools.  Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD) (Vendome Group LLC),  7(3), 144-151.