Part 3: Advanced Levels Of Clinical Inquiry And Systematic R

Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews Kels

Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.

Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.

Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Provide APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.

Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research.

Paper For Above instruction

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and complex mental health condition that has evolved in understanding over time. Historically associated predominantly with war veterans suffering from "shell shock," PTSD is now recognized as a disorder that affects diverse populations exposed to traumatic events, including children, adolescents, and adults. Its diagnosis, as outlined in the DSM-V, encompasses exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence, leading to symptoms such as re-experiencing, avoidance, negative cognitions, mood disturbances, and increased arousal. The multifaceted nature of PTSD necessitates effective treatment options, with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) emerging as prominent interventions applied in clinical practice.

The clinical issue of interest centers on evaluating the comparative efficacy of CBT and EMDR in reducing PTSD symptoms and associated comorbidities like anxiety and depression. As PTSD affects a broad demographic, understanding which treatment modality yields superior or sustained benefits over time aids clinicians in making evidence-based decisions. To systematically explore this topic, I formulated a PICO(T) question designed to guide the evidence synthesis: "In patients diagnosed with PTSD (P), is EMDR therapy (I) more effective than CBT (C) in alleviating PTSD symptoms, anxiety, and depression (O) over one year (T)?" The keywords used to develop the search strategy included "post-traumatic stress disorder," "PTSD," "EMDR," "eye movement desensitization and reprocessing," "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy," and "CBT," combined with Boolean operators to refine the search queries.

In conducting the literature review, I utilized four prominent research databases recognized for high-quality evidence hierarchy: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. These databases are acclaimed for their comprehensive coverage of biomedical literature, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials, which are considered the gold standard for evidence-based practice. Specifically, PubMed and MEDLINE are essential for accessing peer-reviewed clinical research, with PubMed providing a broad search platform and MEDLINE offering a curated collection of biomedical journal articles. EMBASE complements these with extensive coverage of European and international journals, while CINAHL specializes in nursing and allied health literature.

The four peer-reviewed articles selected for this review include systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing the effectiveness of CBT and EMDR for PTSD treatment. The first, by Khan et al. (2018), is a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing these therapies in randomized clinical trials, emphasizing the relative effectiveness of each intervention. Brown et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis focusing on psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents following disasters. Lewey et al. (2018) provided a comparative meta-analysis of EMDR and trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) for young populations. Lastly, Chen et al. (2015) presented a systematic review and meta-analysis contrasting EMDR and CBT among adults with PTSD.

Analyzing the levels of evidence within these articles reveals that all are high-level systematic reviews and meta-analyses, representing top-tier evidence according to the hierarchy of clinical evidence. Systematic reviews synthesize data from multiple studies to provide comprehensive and reliable summaries of treatment efficacy, reducing bias inherent in individual studies. For instance, Khan et al. (2018) systematically compiled randomized clinical trials to compare EMDR and CBT, offering a robust synthesis that suggests EMDR may be more effective in symptom reduction. The strength of such reviews lies in their methodological rigor, including predefined inclusion criteria, systematic data extraction, and statistical pooling via meta-analysis, which enhances the validity and generalizability of findings.

The advantages of using systematic reviews in clinical research are manifold. They allow clinicians to stay abreast of the latest and most comprehensive evidence, integrate findings across multiple studies, and identify gaps in current knowledge. Systematic reviews also assist in formulating treatment guidelines, informing policy decisions, and designing future research. For example, the review by Brown et al. (2017) consolidates evidence into actionable insights, demonstrating that psychosocial interventions like EMDR and CBT effectively alleviate PTSD symptoms in youth following disasters. Similarly, Lewey et al. (2018) underscore the comparable effectiveness of EMDR and TF-CBT, guiding practitioners in choosing tailored interventions based on patient preferences and contextual factors.

In conclusion, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses examined offer high-level evidence supporting the efficacy of both EMDR and CBT in treating PTSD. They illustrate the importance of evidence synthesis in clinical decision-making, advocating for ongoing research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up durations to refine these interventions further. Emphasizing systematic reviews is crucial in advancing evidence-based practices, ensuring treatment approaches are grounded in the most rigorous and comprehensive evidence available.

References

  • Chen, L., Zhang, G., Hu, M., & Liang, X. (2015). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Versus Cognitive- Behavioral Therapy for Adult Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 203(6). doi:10.1097/nmd
  • Khan, A. M., Dar, S., Ahmed, R., Bachu, R., Adnan, M., & Kotapati, V. P. (2018). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy versus Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing in Patients with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Cureus, 10(3), e3250. doi:10.7759/cureus.3250
  • Brown, R. C., Witt, A., Fegert, J. M., Keller, F., Rassenhofer, M., & Plener, P. L. (2017). Psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents after man-made and natural disasters: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 47(11), 1893–1905.
  • Lewey, J. H., Smith, C. L., Burcham, B., et al. (2018). Comparing the Effectiveness of EMDR and TF-CBT for Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 11(4), 457–472.
  • Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ..11129.79
  • Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(5), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ..53883.58
  • Sanders, J. R., & Malem, R. (2013). Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions for trauma. Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 86(4), 352-369.
  • Van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.
  • Kar, N. (2011). Psychological mechanisms of posttraumatic stress disorder: Insights from basic science. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12(4), 417-429.
  • Bradley, R., et al. (2005). A multi-dimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 66(12), 1530-1544.

Related Assignments