Systematic review: A summary of the medical literature that uses explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies and that uses appropriate statistical techniques to combine these valid studies. Randomized controlled clinical trial: Participants are randomly allocated into an experimental group or a control group and followed over time for the variables/outcomes of interest. No control group is involved.Ĭase control study: A study which involves identifying patients who have the outcome of interest (cases) and patients without the same outcome (controls), and looking back to see if they had the exposure of interest.Ĭohort study: Involves identification of two groups (cohorts) of patients, one which received the exposure of interest, and one which did not, and following these cohorts forward for the outcome of interest. Case report / Case series: A report on a series of patients with an outcome of interest. Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International. Johns Hopkins nursing evidence-based practice: model and guidelines. Scientific rationale thought leader(s) in the fieldī Good quality: Expertise appears to be credible draws fairly definitive conclusions Ĭ Low quality or major flaws: Expertise is not discernable or is dubious conclusionsĭang, D., & Dearholt, S. Standard, Clinician Experience, Consumer Preference:Ī High quality: Expertise is clearly evident draws definitive conclusions provides Literature Review, Expert Opinion, Case Report, Community Results poorly defined quality improvement, financial or program evaluation Reasonably consistent recommendations with some reference to scientific evidenceĬ Low quality or major flaws: Unclear or missing aims and objectives inconsistent Opinion of nationally recognized experts(s) based on experiential evidenceĪ High quality: Clear aims and objectives consistent results across multiple settings formal quality improvement, financial or program evaluation methods used definitive conclusions consistent recommendations with thorough reference to scientific evidenceī Good quality: Clear aims and objectives consistent results in a single setting įormal quality improvement or financial or program evaluation methods used Quality improvement, program or financial evaluation Included studies with fairly definitive conclusions national expertise is clearlyĮvident developed or revised within the last 5 yearsĬ Low quality or major flaws: Material not sponsored by an official organization or agency undefined, poorly defined, or limited literature search strategy no evaluation of strengths and limitations of included studies, insufficient evidence with inconsistent results, conclusions cannot be drawn not revised within the last 5 yearsīased on experiential and non-research evidence Numbers of well-designed studies evaluation of strengths and limitations of Systematic literature search strategy reasonably consistent results, sufficient Organization, or government agency reasonably thorough and appropriate Search strategy consistent results with sufficient numbers of well-designed studies Ĭriteria-based evaluation of overall scientific strength and quality of included studiesĪnd definitive conclusions national expertise is clearly evident developed orī Good quality: Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, private Opinion of respected authorities and/or nationally recognizedĮxpert committees/consensus panels based on scientific evidenceĪ High quality: Material officially sponsored by a professional, public, private organization, or government agency documentation of a systematic literature Qualitative study or systematic review with or without a meta-synthesisĬ Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results insufficient sample size for the study design conclusions cannot be drawn Systematic review of a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and non-experimental studies, or non-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis Systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi experimental, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysisī Good quality: Reasonably consistent results sufficient sample size for the study design some control, fairly definitive conclusions reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-analysisĪ High quality: Consistent, generalizable results sufficient sample size for the study design adequate control definitive conclusions consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence Experimental study, randomized controlled trial (RCT)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |