Synthesizing Quantitative Evidence for Evidence-based Nursing: Systematic Review

Abstract

As evidence-based practice has become an important issue in healthcare settings, the educational needs for knowledge and skills for the generation and utilization of healthcare evidence are increasing. Systematic review (SR), a way of evidence generation, is a synthesis of primary scientific evidence, which summarizes the best evidence on a specific clinical question using a transparent, a priori protocol driven approach. SR methodology requires a critical appraisal of primary studies, data extraction in a reliable and repeatable way, and examination for validity of the results. SRs are considered hierarchically as the highest form of evidence as they are a systematic search, identification, and summarization of the available evidence to answer a focused clinical question with particular attention to the methodological quality of studies or the credibility of opinion and text. The purpose of this paper is to introduce an overview of the fundamental knowledge, principals and processes in SR. The focus of this paper is on SR especially for the synthesis of quantitative data from primary research studies that examines the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. To activate evidence-based nursing care in various healthcare settings, the best and available scientific evidence are essential components. This paper will include some examples to promote understandings.

Ranking of Risks for Existing and New Building Works

“…Besides this, EBP typically involves four major activities: ask, acquire, appraise, and apply the research materials [14]. Among all the available evidence, a systematic review of the previous literature is considered the highest form of evidence, as it is a systematic search which identifies and summarises all of the available evidence to answer a research question [15].…”

A systematic map and in-depth review of European telehealth interventions efficacy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

“…In this category, two articles reported a single trial [48,49]. Two plots present reported outcomes in A quality assessment of the articles selected for inclusion was performed "to establish validity and to establish the risk of bias" [24]. Although the majority of the SRs scored high in the critical appraisal, many SRs lacked a precise definition of the COPD patient population, a description of the TH intervention and were vague about study design criteria [23].…”

Fonoaudiologia baseada em evidências: o papel das revisões sistemáticas

“…Evidence-based practice aims to use the best available clinical evidence, coupled with professional clinical experience and patient values and preferences for decision-making in clinical practice (1) , widely recognized in the medical field, has also spread to other areas of health, including speech therapy. Systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyzes are at the top of the evidence pyramid, providing the highest level of evidence to verify the effectiveness of interventions (2) . They seek to collect all evidence that fits pre-defined eligibility criteria to verify a specific research question (3) .…”