Assignment

Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods.

When it comes to evaluating evidence there are many different methods to use. Two of the many ones that I have seen being used the most are meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Meta-analyses is "a method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power."(Guyatt,1994) Systematic review is defined as "are types of literature reviews that collect and critically analyze multiple research studies or papers, using methods that are selected before one or more research questions are formulated, and then finding and analyzing studies that relate to and answer those questions in a structured methodology."(Jadad,1996) Both of these methods are effective when evaluating evidence but both have their own pros and cons. First meta-analyses is more of a controlled research so the results can swayed one way or the other. Systemic review is good at reducing bias by identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a particular. Both a pretty quick at getting results but each have their own issues. Disadvantages of both are "use of summary data rather than individual data and inclusion and exclusion criteria may not be detailed."(Reade,2008).

Reference:

Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. User's guide to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995

Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials. 1996

Reade MC, Delaney A, Bailey MJ, Angus DC. Bench-to-bedside review: avoiding pitfalls in critical care meta-analysis-funnel plots, risk estimates, types of heterogeneity, baseline risk and the ecologic fallacy. Crit Care.