Advantages And Disadvantages Of Systematic Review

An annotated bibliography is a catalogue of citations to books, documents and articles with the purpose of the annotation being to inform the reader of the precision, relevance and quality of the sources cited (Davis, 2009). Evidence based practice enables health care professionals to effectively use current verification during the decision-making procedure (Sacket et al 2000). Healthcare professionals use a hierarchy of evidence as a guide to define the reliability and importance of the evidence based research; with the evidence that is founded further upon

Locate a total of five research databases or collections related to your topic. Each research database description is worth 30 points. You may search for these in various locations, e.g., the Internet, an intranet at work, print publications, etc. You may NOT choose the databases that are already familiar to you – MEDLINE, PUBMED (which also indexes MEDLINE), GOOGLE SCHOLAR, and CINAHL. Instead, you are expected to expand your knowledge of evidence-based sources. Places to help you begin include your textbook, which lists databases and websites that report research. The Chamberlain online library (http://library.chamberlain.edu) gives you access to several databases and provide tutorials for searching. Government sites such as those at the National Institutes of Health offer collections of research on a variety of subjects. The key to choosing the databases is that each contains research-based evidence that also pertains to your topic of interest.

Evidence-based practice is an approach used by health care professionals to continually use current best evidence-based research to make ethical and reliable decisions regarding patient care. “Research to promote evidence-based practice is becoming more and more a part of the regular work of health care leaders” (Grand Canyon University, 2015, p. 1). However, it is important to determine the difference between solid research and flawed research that provides unreliable inferences. Evidence-based research includes focusing on a clinical question; and includes the review and incorporation of several studies to strengthen the results of the new study (Grand Canyon University, 2015). Roddy et al. and Ganz et al. articles will be assessed to determine if the recommended changes were backed by solid research that warrants changes in a hospital.

The purpose of a systematic review is to attempt to find, evaluate and synthesize high quality research relevant to the research question. A systematic review uses carefully developed data collection and sampling procedures that are put in place in advance as a protocol. (Polit, 2012). A systematic review must contain the following: a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic coding and analysis of included studies, and a meta-analysis if possible. (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009). Systematic reviews are conducted by nurse researchers to avoid reaching incorrect or misleading conclusions that

The article that I use as peer reviewed journal is “ Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes”. Type 2 diabetes is considered as the most common disease that affect many people. This is a condition that is associated with a high buildup of sugar in the blood stream. The symptoms are constant hunger, fatigue, lack of energy and frequent urination. At milder levels, the symptoms become severe and lead to the death of an individual. Importantly, it also increases the rate of the cardiovascular disease once an individual has been reported to have such symptoms. The cardiovascular diseases lead to a greater rate of complications in patients with type two diabetes and result in loss of life and also in the United States, it has been rated as one of the leading causes of death. Due to this reason, researchers have focused more on the development of appropriate drugs to improve the treatment of the condition. The article on “semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes” provides beneficial knowledge to the health-care field.

This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, under the registration number CRD42017060339, and may be accessed online at

The author considers the simplest way of finding out best practice is by using guidelines. According to Field & Lohr (1992) guidelines are “systematic developed statements to assist practitioners and patients decisions for specific clinical circumstances.” Evidence is always current and a generous collection of many different systematic research reviews with multiple random control trials are available (AGREE, 2000). These types of trials are graded at the top level of hierarchy (Guyatt et al 2002).Nevertheless in contrast Devereaux and Yusuf (2005) argue that top level hierarchy is not a guaranteed deviation from the truth in randomized trials. The clinical guidance used is the National Institute of Clinical Guidance (NICE 2009) is based in the author’s homeland and is an independent organisation responsible for providing guidelines. The ethos behind NICE (2009) is to promote and prevent poor health nationally involving the public, health professionals and patients in the process (NICE 2009).

Evidence Based Practice is crucial to support care provided to patient. It is imperative to get evidence base on proven clinical practice that provides valuable insights about human health and illness as per Polit and Beck (2017). The researcher must pick a topic to be research on and A PICOT question formulated. These questions help as a guidance on the research. The researcher then check to see what can be retrieve that are of importances to topic. In most case narrowing of the questions may help. The levels of evidence are important because it help with identifying hierarchy of evidence. The higher the Hierarchy of evidence the better evidence base information.

Meta analyses, such as ‘Current evidence on risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, often summarised the data of 50+ clinical trials which meant the time that would have been spent researching multiple articles was more beneficially used in other research processes, ultimately streamlining the research. The complexity of the language and medical concepts in the journal articles often limited the accessibility of the ideas presented. Typically, websites proved to be not very useful as medical concepts were oversimplified. However, certain medical practices’ websites including Pain Spa UK provided valuable inside perspectives on certain procedures, whilst others were useful for obtaining relevant statistics and providing basic preliminary understanding of certain medical information.

It synthesizes the results of various primary studies by using strategies that reduces biases and random errors. These reviews follow a strict scientific design and provide consistent estimates about the effects of interventions, therefore, conclusions are defensible. Systematic reviews shows where knowledge is lacking and can be used to guide future research. These reviews are usually carried out in the areas of clinical tests such as diagnostic, screening and prognostic; public health interventions; economic evaluations; adverse effects and how and why interventions work. Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews undertaken by Cochrane Collaboration members, aims to help people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare

The study was a systematic review of scientific papers selected by a search of the SciELO, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and LILACS-BIREME databases. Among the 2169 articles found, 12 studies proved relevant to the issue and presented an evidence strength rating of B. No publications rated evidence strength A. Seven of the studies analyzed were prospective cohorts and 5 were cross-sectional studies.

There are some limitations to this literature review. One limitation is some of these studies may be outdated being that they are from the 1990s (i.e: Dulit et. al, 1990; Miller et. al, 1993; and Dougherty et. al, 1999). Another limitation is some of the studies were not randomized samples (i.e: Miller et. al, 1993 and Tragesser et. al, 2013). If samples are not random this could mean the results are bias.

Literature reviews provide adequate supporting evidence for the evidence-based practice (EBP) process (Cowell, 2016). By using the information obtained from the literature review, that supports the topic, one can evaluate a situation and arrive at the problem that needs a solution. Therefore, an appropriate technique is necessary when searching for the right literature and evidence (Cowell, 2016).

Both clinicians who are enquiring clinical questions and researchers who are conducting in-depth searches for systematic reviews come across a few

We used a broad range of keywords in our search strategy, including free text in addition to the controlled vocabulary terms of individual databases. This is especially important for CPWs where the terminology is inconsistent. The search strategy was developed with the assistance of an information specialist. We also screened relevant publications from the EPOC (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group) Register of Studies.40 Bibliographies of CPW systematic reviews were also searched for missed publications. A recent study suggests that English language restriction does not introduce systematic bias into systematic reviews with meta-analysis.39 Therefore, we restricted the language of publication to either English or French. Studies identified from the search strategy were entered into the reference manager Endnote® (version X4, Thomson-Reuters). They were then manually