Chapter 30: Systematic Reviews Of Research Evidence ✓ Solved

Chapter 30 Systematic Reviews of Research Evidence

Tell whether the following statement is true or false: Evidence-based practice relies on rigorous integration of research evidence on a topic through systematic reviews.

Answer to Question #1: True. Evidence-based practice relies on rigorous integration of research evidence on a topic through systematic reviews. A systematic review methodically integrates research evidence about a specific research question using carefully developed sampling and data collection procedures that are spelled out in advance in a protocol.

Tell whether the following statement is true or false: Systematic reviews of qualitative studies often involve statistical integration of findings through meta-analysis.

Answer to Question #2: False. Systematic reviews of quantitative studies often involve statistical integration of findings through meta-analysis, a procedure whose advantages include objectivity, enhanced power, and precision; meta-analysis is not appropriate, however, for broad questions or when there is substantial inconsistency of findings.

Tell whether the following statement is true or false: The steps in both quantitative and qualitative integration are similar.

Answer to Question #3: True. The steps in both quantitative and qualitative integration are similar and involve formulating the problem, designing the study, searching the literature for a sample of primary studies, evaluating study quality, extracting and encoding data for analysis, analyzing the data, and reporting the findings.

Tell whether the following statement is true or false: There is consensus on systematic reviews should include the grey literature.

Answer to Question #4: False. There is no consensus on whether systematic reviews should include the grey literature—that is, unpublished reports.

Tell whether the following statement is true or false: Metasyntheses are more than just summaries of prior quantitative findings; they involve a discovery of essential features of a body of findings and, typically, a transformation that yields new insights and interpretations.

Answer to Question #5: False. Metasyntheses are more than just summaries of prior qualitative findings; they involve a discovery of essential features of a body of findings and, typically, a transformation that yields new insights and interpretations.

Paper For Above Instructions

Systematic reviews are integral to evidence-based practice, forming a bridge between individual research studies and the broader implications for clinical and policy decision-making. The systematic review process rigorously integrates research evidence to answer specific questions, thereby enabling practitioners to apply findings with confidence.

Importance of Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews are critical for synthesizing evidence in a structured way. Through a series of defined steps that include formulating questions, defining eligibility for studies, and assessing quality, researchers ensure that their findings are comprehensive and reliable (Higgins et al., 2019). These reviews often utilize protocols that establish specific criteria to guide the research process, enhancing reproducibility and internal validity (Moher et al., 2015).

Types of Systematic Reviews

Different types of systematic reviews cater to distinct research objectives. Primarily, these include meta-analyses, which quantitatively combine results from multiple studies; metasyntheses, which qualitatively integrate findings from qualitative studies; and mixed-methods systematic reviews that combine both qualitative and quantitative data (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012). Understanding the distinctions between these approaches is crucial for researchers to select the appropriate methodology for their objectives.

Steps in Conducting a Systematic Review

The steps involved in conducting a systematic review can be broadly categorized as follows:

• Formulating the review question
• Defining eligibility criteria for primary studies
• Developing a review protocol including objectives and methodologies
• Searching for relevant literature
• Screening studies for inclusion
• Assessing quality and bias
• Extracting and analyzing data
• Presenting the findings

Challenges in Systematic Reviews

One of the challenges faced in systematic reviews is the inclusion of grey literature. While some argue it is essential for a comprehensive examination of available evidence, others believe its inclusion complicates the review process due to potential biases and the variable quality of unpublished data (Sampson et al., 2016). A lack of consensus on this issue highlights the ongoing debates in the methodology of systematic reviews.

Integrative Approaches in Reviews

Furthermore, the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings can offer richer insights. For example, metasynthesis involves collating and interpreting qualitative findings to draw new conclusions that can offer deeper understandings of a phenomenon (Noblit & Hare, 1988). This process is crucial in healthcare settings where human experiences are often complex and nuanced.

Writing Systematic Reviews

Finally, the dissemination of systematic reviews through well-structured reports is necessary for effective knowledge transfer. Guidelines such as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) provide frameworks to enhance reporting transparency, thereby improving the utility and accessibility of the findings (Liberati et al., 2009).

Conclusion

In conclusion, systematic reviews play a pivotal role in synthesizing research evidence to guide practice and policy. By rigorously integrating diverse studies, adherence to structured protocols, and ensuring comprehensive reporting, these reviews have a profound impact on improving healthcare outcomes.

References

• Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley.
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
• Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Methodological Developments in Mixed-Methods Research: A Systematic Review in Social Work. Social Work Research.
• Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Gurevych, I., & Cooksley, M. (2016). Systematic reviews need systematic literature searching. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(1), 95-101.
• Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Sage Publications.
• Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., ... & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: explanation and elaboration. PLOS Med, 6(7), e1000100.
• Bentham, J., & Stuart, V. (1793). The Theory of Legislation. J. St. Clair.
• Garner, P., Hopewell, S., & Huber, G. (2016). When and how to include the grey literature in systematic reviews: A discussion of current practices. Research Synthesis Methods, 7(3), 320-327.
• Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMC Med Res Methodol, 5(1), 1.