4-There are various in which a person can be able to evaluate whether the evidence they have and are using in the practice is true or not. It is always important to evaluate evidence so as to be able to understand what type of information one is using. Two methods that one can be able to use to evaluate evidence in the nursing practice include systematic reviews and meta analyses (Melnyk, 2011). Systematic reviews are a form of literature review that involves the use of systematic methods to be able to collect and analyze secondary information presented in a document. The method involves trying to understand whether the data presented in the source has followed the right steps when being developed. Meta analyses on the other hand is a method through which the researcher is able to evaluate the credibility of data being presented in various quantitative sources. According to research, one cannot be able to use the results of one research activity to implement an intervention. There is need for them to use several sources. Meta analyses allows the research to combine the results of various sources to find the commonality in them.

One of the main difference in both methods is the focus the methods. Meta-analysis focuses on the researcher being able to analyze quantitative data from various sources. Systematic reviews on the other and focus on both qualitative and quantitative data to come up with results (Uman, 2011). The main difference is therefore what type of data each deals with. Systematic reviews follow a certain procedure in order to be able to come up with a result. This is not the same as in the case of meta analyses where the focus is on research results of article that are investigating the same topic. The similarity in both is that they are able to help the researcher to compare various forms of data and come up with a result. They allow the researcher to compare the results of multiple research and studies.

References

Melnyk, B. M., (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: a guide to best practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Uman L. S. (2011). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l’Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l’enfant et de l’adolescent, 20(1), 57–59.

 

 

 
 

5-Two methods of evaluating evidence are Case control study and Systematic Review.  In Case control study Researchers choose people with a particular result (the cases) and interview the groups or check their records to ascertain what different experiences they had. They compare the odds of having an experience with the outcome to the odds of having an experience without the outcome. in Systematic Review a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a particular clinical issue. The researchers use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific criteria. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The systematic review may also include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis.In case studies, the study start with the identification of a group of individuals with a particular health outcome while in stystematic review  summarises the results of available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. They are both alike because there is always a control group to compare data.

References

Admin. (2013, June 21). Introduction to study designs – case-control studies. Retrieved from https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/e-learning/epidemiology/practitioners/introduction-study-design-ccs

Nursing: Evaluate Evidence. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://guides.pcc.edu/c.php?g=210096&p=1385961

What is a systematic review? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://consumers.cochrane.org/what-systematic-review

 

 
 

6-A meta-analysis of all well-done studies of a given clinical topic (using participant-level data if available). Define criteria for which of the published studies are actually entered into this meta-analysis (e.g., only randomized blinded trials, or any direct comparison studies, etc.). This represents the reference standard. Limitations of this approach include the lack of agreement on reliable validity standards for meta-analysis and the possibility of incorporation bias due to testing the validity of a subset of evidence using the whole evidence as gold standard. In some instances, a small evidence base (consisting of one or a few well-designed, appropriately powered studies) may be sufficient to reach the most appropriate conclusion.

Systematic Reviews

A literature search could identify and compare the conclusions of different systematic reviews that used different prioritization strategies to address the same clinical question. The advantage of this method is its relative ease of implementation. Provided a reviewer can find published reviews that addressed the same clinical question using different strategies, the comparison of the reviews’ conclusions can be done relatively quickly. Although this would be the least labor-intensive method, it has some drawbacks. First, it may be difficult to identify clinical questions where different systematic reviews used different prioritization strategies. Second, the systematic reviews may have differed in other methodological areas, such as risk-of-bias assessment and strength of evidence assessment, which could then lead to differences in conclusions among reviews.

A reviewer could identify a single existing systematic review, determine its evidence prioritization strategy (by examining the report inclusion criteria), and test other prioritization strategies on the same evidence base, while keeping all other methodology the same. The advantage of this method over the method above is that other methodological aspects of review (e.g., risk-of-bias assessment) would no longer confound the comparison. However, this method is more labor-intensive than the method above, as it requires performing independent research synthesis using the other prioritization strategies

Treadwill, JR; Signh, S; Taliti, R. (2011). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A Framework for “Best Evidence” Approaches in Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56652/

 
Reply  |  Quote & Reply 

 Week 1 DiscussionDiscussion Topic Due February 19 at 11:59 PM

Week 1 Discussion Questions

MAT2058 Textbook:

Navidi, W. and Monk, B. (2019). Elementary Statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Link:

Discussion Questions Week 1

Instructions:

• In the announcement area there should be a listing with your name and number assigned for the discussion questions.
• If you do not see this list, email your instructor to get your assigned number.
• Please use #40 until you receive your own number.
• Access your textbook this way: Go to Content. Click on the week you’re working on. Scroll down to Week # Activity (then click the underlined words in the sentence, “By the due date assigned, click the “Week n ALEKS Link” to complete the activities for this week”) or Week # Quiz. A new page will open. You are now in the ALEKS system. Select the menu in the upper-left corner (it looks like three dashes). Select Textbook and then E-Book. You can also access the E-book when you are in Learning Mode (i.e. when you are working through your topics in the ALEKS Activity) by clicking on the E-Book icon to the right of any problem.
• Please provide the questions, your answers, and show all of the steps and processes you used to solve each problem.
• Remember to do both of the problems assigned and respond to two of your classmates’ solutions in a substantive way. You may post revisions based on your instructor’s feedback by the end of each week.
• Be sure to meet the participation requirement by responding substantively to at least two of your classmates. You can:
  • ask a question about your classmate’s solution(s)
  • offer help when you see an error, or
  • seek help in completing your own problems.
• Do not solve another student’s problems. Each student must be graded on his/her own work.
• Remember that non-substantive posts such as “Good job!” or praising another student’s work will not count toward your participation score. Be sure to refer to the grading rubric.

  

Page 1

· Discuss local statistics from Charles County Maryland for syphilis

· Offer at least one evidence based action plan that is measurable and could be implemented in the community to decrease the incidence of that syphillis.

· Discuss at least one opposition or barrier they may come across with the proposed action plan.

· References must be evidence based and no older than 5 years

Page 2

Discuss local statistics from Charles County Maryland for Human Papillomavirus (HPV)

· Offer at least one evidence based action plan that is measurable and could be implemented in the community to decrease the incidence of that HPV.

· Discuss at least one opposition or barrier they may come across with the proposed action plan.

References must be evidence based and no older than 5 years

Page 3

 

What statistics are available for Charles County Maryland regarding gonorrhea? 

Based on the statistics presented, what can you surmise about the incidence of chlamydia? Any conclusions you can draw here?

What are the CDC recommendations for treatment of gonorrhea in pregnancy? 

Do recommendations change when a pregnant female with gonorrhea is treated?

References must be evidence based and no older than 5 years

  

Neurological Disorders and Mental Health 

Question(s): What is likely to be different in the appearance of depression in a person who is 70 years old compared to its appearance in a person who is 20 years old? (Mention at least 3)

Guidelines:

*Original papers (NO plagiarism).

*APA Format.

*Answer should be based on Chapter 23-Neurological Disorders and Chapter 24 – Mental Health. (Both chapters ATTACHED), no just your opinion. 

*Please, do not mention the signs and symptoms of depression. You need to mention the characteristics / symptoms that are common on a depressed 70 years old person than are different in a 20 years old depressed individual (do a comparison between the depressed 70 years old with the depressed 20 years old) (mention at least 3).

*Two reference beside the text book.