SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

 

  

 

DISCUSSION

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In everyday life, reviews are often used to assess the quality of products in the marketplace. Information on a product is compiled from many sources, and then an overall assessment is made. In research, too, there are methods for identifying and synthesizing the existing evidence from primary research on a topic, known as  systematic reviews. In the hierarchy of evidence—the foundation of evidence-based practice—high-quality systematic reviews are placed at the top of the hierarchy and are considered excellent sources of evidence because they summarize or combine findings from multiple studies.

 

This week you focus on systematic reviews generally, as well as one specific type of systematic review, the meta-analysis. You will explore the validity of the use of these techniques, as well as their strengths and limitations.

 

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 

Students will:

 

· Analyze the validity of the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research

 

· Analyze systematic review and meta-analysis epidemiological study designs

 

· Explain how epidemiologic information can be utilized in evidence-based nursing practice 

 

This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible

 

DUE APRIL 15

 

Week 8: Discussion

 

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

 

Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.

 

Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.

 

For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.

 

RESOURCES

 

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources. 

 

WEEKLY RESOURCES

 

LEARNING RESOURCES

 

Required Readings

 

· Driscoll, A., Grant, M. J., Carroll, D., Dalton, S., Deaton, C., Jones, I., Lehwaldt, D., McKee, G., Munyombwe, T., & Astin, F. (2018).  The effect of nurse-to-patient ratios on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in acute specialist units: A systematic review and meta-analysisLinks to an external site. .  European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing,  17(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117721561

 

· Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J. A., Ghersi, D., & Askie, L. M. (2020).  Prospective meta-analyses and Cochrane’s role in embracing next-generation methodologiesLinks to an external site. .  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,  10, ED000145. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000145

 

· Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021).  The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsLinks to an external site. .  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,  134, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

 

· Haidich, A. B. (2010).  Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site. .  Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

 

· Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020).  Interventions to improve mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site. .  American Journal of Health Promotion,  34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451

 

· Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019).  How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-synthesesLinks to an external site. .  Annual Review of Psychology,  70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

 

TO PREPARE:

 

· Review the studies and articles provided in the Learning Resources. Consider the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Make sure you are clear on the difference between the two approaches.

 

Post a brief summary of your informed opinion regarding the validity of the use of systematic reviews  and meta-analyses in epidemiological research. Include  at least two strengths or limitations of each technique. Provide evidence from  at least one of the articles in the Learning Resources to support and justify your position.

 

Assignment Rubric Details Close

 

Rubric

 

NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

We can handle this paper for you

We Guarantee ZERO Plagiarism ZERO AI

Done by Professional writers from scratch