Evidence Matrix Name Date 732619

Evidence Matrixname Date

Evidence Matrixname Date

Evidence Matrix Name: ______________________________ Date: _____________________________ Author Journal Name/ Year of Publication Research Design Sample Size Outcome Variables Measured Quality (A, B, C) Results/Author’s Suggested Conclusion Research Design Options: Quantitative, Qualitative, Systematic Review, Mixed Method Study Outcome variables measured: what is the researcher trying to measure or investigate. The aim or objective of the study. Quality is very subjective: This is your opinion so you cannot get this wrong. Choose from the following: A: (High) Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. B: (Moderate) Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. C: (Low) Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Paper For Above instruction

The provided evidence matrix template aims to facilitate the systematic organization, evaluation, and synthesis of research evidence across multiple studies. This template is particularly useful in literature reviews, evidence-based practice, and research assessment because it allows researchers to compare key aspects of individual studies, assess their quality, and determine the strength of the evidence supporting particular findings or interventions.

The matrix begins with essential bibliographic details such as the author's name, the journal or source of publication, and the publication year. These foundational pieces of information serve to contextualize each study within its academic and temporal landscape and are vital for referencing and verifying sources. Following this, the research design is documented—whether it is quantitative, qualitative, a systematic review, or a mixed-methods study. This classification helps in understanding the methodological approach, which influences the interpretation of the findings and the applicability to practice or further research.

Sample size is a critical feature recorded in the matrix, as it impacts the statistical power and generalizability of the study. Larger samples tend to offer more reliable and representative findings. The outcome variables measured are explicitly listed, clarifying what the researchers aimed to investigate or the specific constructs they sought to quantify. These variables directly relate to the study's objectives or hypotheses.

The quality rating (A, B, or C) is a subjective assessment that indicates the confidence level in the evidence provided by each study. A rating of "A" suggests high confidence, meaning that further research is unlikely to alter the current understanding significantly. A "B" rating implies moderate confidence, where additional research might impact the effect estimate, and a "C" signifies low confidence, where further studies could substantially change the conclusions.

Finally, the results or the authors' suggested conclusions are summarized, providing insights into the findings, implications, and potential contributions of each study. This organized approach enables comprehensive comparisons across various evidence sources and supports critical appraisal and decision-making.

In conclusion, employing an evidence matrix such as this promotes transparency, systematic analysis, and informed synthesis of research evidence, which are fundamental to advancing knowledge and evidence-based practice across disciplines.

References

  • University of York. (2019). Evidence synthesis and systematic reviews. York: University of York. https://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/research/public-health/research/evidence-synthesis/
  • Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. (Version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
  • Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). (2018). CASP systematic review checklist. CASP. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
  • Cassell, E. J. (2004). The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine. Oxford University Press.
  • Garrard, J. (2011). Health sciences literature review made easy. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  • Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods. Open University Press.
  • Armstrong, R., et al. (2011). Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a guide to the process. Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 10(2), 89-96.
  • Kable, A., et al. (2012). Developing a research evidence matrix: a guide for systematic evidence synthesis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 144.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
  • Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553.

Related Assignments