Systematic Review Vs Systematic Study

For the purpose of this paper, this writer, will use the APA Task force on Evidence-Based Practices (2006, p. 273), definition, beginning with the foundation and expanding it to mental health, defined evidence-based practice as “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture and preferences” (Norcross, Hogan, & Koocher, 2008). According to Dr. Norcross, counseling is a dynamic process, with many moving parts, and the clinical experience is the integration of parts (pillars), the actual work in progress, which creates an opportunity for the best clinical outcomes and improved quality of life (Laureate Education Producer, n.d.).

The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of a quantitative article using Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt’s (2015) rapid critical appraisal (RCA) for a randomized clinical trial. Topics included are the validity of the research, results of the research and how the information can be applied to the clinical care of my own patient population.

Analyze and critically appraise evidence-based literature to support the solution to the identified problem. A minimum of (5) articles must be identified. This may include guidelines from the National Guideline Clearinghouse, Joanna Briggs Institute, or a review from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review.

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 current review was managed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and established guidelines for narrative synthesis by Popay et al. (2006).

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 the incorporation of individual clinical expertise with best research evidence and patient values and expectations. Health care decision of individual patients should be based on best available research evidence. A health decision made from a sound research evidence has the potential to ensure best practice and reduce variations in health care delivery. In health science, an ever increasing plethora of studies being published and is challenging for clinicians to keep up with the literature. Integrating research into practice is time consuming and need methods for easy access to such evidences for busy clinicians. Indeed, clinical decision should be based on the latest research evidence. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarize the research evidence, which is generally the best form of evidence, thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decision makers and are positioned

1. Is the article proposing to answer a specific clinical question or questions? What are the questions?

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.

Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Asking the Clinical Question: A Key Step in Evidence-Based Practice

Doctoral level counselor education programs will implement the 2016 CACREP standards to maintain accreditation. Adkinson-Bradley (2011), details the progression of clarity in the CACREP standards for counselor education and the foci for each revision. In recent years, professional identity has been the cornerstone of the CACREP standards and there is not a specific study that addresses how research reflects the doctoral level domains (Gladding, 2013).

“Critics of meta-analysis and the early exemplar research suggest that the problem in finding differential effectiveness of counseling approaches can be

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

This piece of work will be exploring the different forms of research and their significance in the evidence-based practice.

How is the role and function of the therapist in each specific approach? 6. What would research look like from the point of view of each specific approach? 7. What critical ethical concerns could be raised