5.2 Searching and Appraising Evidence
4 min read•august 7, 2024
relies on finding and evaluating quality research. Searching databases effectively using keywords and Boolean operators helps uncover relevant studies. Critically appraising evidence involves assessing validity, reliability, and applicability to determine its strength.
Interpreting study results requires understanding statistical and clinical significance. P-values indicate if findings are likely due to chance, while effect sizes show practical importance. Evaluating both helps determine if evidence should impact patient care decisions.
Literature Search Techniques
Developing Effective Search Strategies
Top images from around the web for Developing Effective Search Strategies
Preliminary Research Strategies | Guide to Writing View original
Is this image relevant?
FAQ: Create a Search Strategy | College of DuPage Library View original
Is this image relevant?
Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Preliminary Research Strategies | Guide to Writing View original
Is this image relevant?
FAQ: Create a Search Strategy | College of DuPage Library View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Developing Effective Search Strategies
Preliminary Research Strategies | Guide to Writing View original
Is this image relevant?
FAQ: Create a Search Strategy | College of DuPage Library View original
Is this image relevant?
Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Preliminary Research Strategies | Guide to Writing View original
Is this image relevant?
FAQ: Create a Search Strategy | College of DuPage Library View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Identify key concepts and terms relevant to the research question or topic
- Use a combination of keywords, synonyms, and related terms to capture relevant literature
- Consider using controlled vocabularies specific to the database (MeSH terms)
- Utilize wildcard symbols and truncation to broaden the search (nurse* captures nurse, nurses, nursing)
- Combine search terms using Boolean operators to refine the search results
Selecting Appropriate Databases
- Choose databases relevant to the research topic or discipline (MEDLINE for biomedical literature, CINAHL for nursing and allied health)
- Consider the scope and coverage of the database to ensure comprehensive results
- Utilize specialized databases for specific types of literature (Cochrane Library for systematic reviews, PsycINFO for psychological literature)
- Explore interdisciplinary databases for topics that span multiple fields (Web of Science, Scopus)
- Access databases through institutional subscriptions or public access options
Applying Boolean Operators
- Use AND to combine search terms and narrow results to articles containing all terms (heart disease AND exercise)
- Use OR to expand the search by including synonyms or related terms (cardiovascular disease OR heart disease)
- Use NOT to exclude specific terms and refine the search (heart disease NOT congenital)
- Combine Boolean operators to create complex search strings (heart disease AND (exercise OR physical activity) NOT congenital)
- Use parentheses to group terms and prioritize the order of operations in the search string
Evaluating Evidence Quality
Critical Appraisal of Evidence
- Assess the strengths and limitations of individual studies to determine their quality and relevance
- Evaluate the appropriateness of the study design for the research question (randomized controlled trials for interventions, cohort studies for risk factors)
- Examine the methods section for clear descriptions of the study population, interventions, and outcomes
- Assess the statistical analysis and interpretation of results for accuracy and appropriateness
- Consider the generalizability of the findings to the target population and clinical setting
Assessing Validity, Reliability, and Applicability
- Validity refers to the extent to which a study measures what it intends to measure
- Assess internal validity by examining potential sources of bias (selection bias, measurement bias, confounding factors)
- Evaluate external validity by considering the representativeness of the study sample and the generalizability of the findings
- Reliability refers to the consistency and reproducibility of the study results
- Assess the reliability of measurement tools and data collection methods (standardized questionnaires, trained interviewers)
- Consider the reliability of the statistical analysis and the precision of the effect estimates (confidence intervals)
- Applicability refers to the relevance of the study findings to the clinical setting and patient population
- Evaluate the similarity of the study population to the target population (age, gender, disease severity)
- Consider the feasibility and acceptability of the interventions in the clinical setting (cost, resources, patient preferences)
Identifying and Addressing Bias
- Bias refers to systematic errors that can distort the study results and lead to incorrect conclusions
- Assess selection bias by examining the methods used to recruit and allocate participants (randomization, concealment)
- Evaluate performance bias by considering differences in the care provided to the study groups (blinding, standardized protocols)
- Assess detection bias by examining the methods used to measure outcomes (blinded outcome assessors, objective measures)
- Evaluate attrition bias by considering the completeness of follow-up and the handling of missing data (intention-to-treat analysis)
- Assess reporting bias by comparing the reported outcomes to the study protocol and registration (selective reporting of positive findings)
Interpreting Study Results
Understanding Statistical Significance
- refers to the likelihood that the observed results are due to chance alone
- Assess the , which represents the probability of observing the results if the null hypothesis is true (p < 0.05 is often considered statistically significant)
- Consider the confidence intervals, which provide a range of values within which the true effect is likely to lie (narrower intervals indicate greater precision)
- Interpret statistically significant results with caution, as they may not always represent clinically meaningful differences
- Consider the sample size and power of the study to detect significant differences (larger samples and higher power increase the likelihood of detecting significant effects)
Evaluating Clinical Significance
- Clinical significance refers to the practical importance and relevance of the study findings to patient care
- Assess the magnitude of the , which represents the strength of the association or difference between groups (relative risk, odds ratio, mean difference)
- Consider the absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat, which provide a measure of the impact of the intervention on patient outcomes
- Evaluate the clinical relevance of the outcomes measured (patient-important outcomes, surrogate endpoints)
- Assess the balance between the benefits and harms of the intervention, taking into account patient values and preferences
- Consider the generalizability of the findings to the target population and the feasibility of implementing the intervention in clinical practice
Key Terms to Review (19)
Clinical practice guidelines: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that assist healthcare professionals and patients in making decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances. These guidelines integrate the best available evidence, expert opinion, and patient preferences to ensure high-quality care and improve health outcomes.
Clinician engagement: Clinician engagement refers to the active involvement and commitment of healthcare professionals in the processes that influence patient care, quality improvement, and decision-making in healthcare settings. It emphasizes the importance of clinicians' input and participation in creating a culture that prioritizes evidence-based practices, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. Engaging clinicians is crucial for fostering an environment where evidence is effectively searched, appraised, and implemented in practice.
Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool: The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool is a systematic framework used to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. It helps researchers and healthcare professionals assess the validity of study findings by examining various domains such as selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. This tool is critical in the process of searching and appraising evidence, as it informs decisions about the reliability and applicability of research findings in clinical practice.
Cohort Study: A cohort study is a type of observational study that follows a group of individuals who share a common characteristic or experience over a period of time to determine how certain exposures or interventions affect their outcomes. It allows researchers to identify and analyze associations between risk factors and health outcomes, making it valuable in understanding disease causation and prevention strategies.
Confidence Interval: A confidence interval is a range of values that is used to estimate the true population parameter with a specified level of certainty. It provides a measure of uncertainty around a sample estimate, allowing researchers to understand the reliability and precision of their findings. The width of the confidence interval reflects the degree of variability in the data and helps in making informed decisions based on statistical analysis.
Critical Appraisal: Critical appraisal is the systematic evaluation of research evidence to assess its validity, reliability, and relevance to a specific clinical question or decision. This process is essential for determining the quality of evidence that will inform practice, ensuring that healthcare professionals make informed decisions based on solid data rather than anecdotal experiences or outdated information.
Effect Size: Effect size is a quantitative measure that reflects the magnitude of a phenomenon, often used to understand the strength of a relationship or the impact of an intervention in research studies. It provides context beyond p-values, helping to assess whether findings are practically significant, not just statistically significant. Understanding effect size aids in comparing results across studies and evaluating the importance of findings in real-world settings.
Evidence grading: Evidence grading is a systematic process that evaluates the quality, reliability, and strength of evidence used in healthcare research and decision-making. This process helps to determine how much confidence can be placed in the findings of studies and guides clinicians and policymakers in making informed decisions based on the best available evidence.
Evidence-based practice: Evidence-based practice is a systematic approach to decision-making in healthcare that integrates the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. This approach ensures that healthcare practices are grounded in scientifically proven methods, improving the quality of care and patient outcomes while considering individual patient preferences.
Grade Framework: A grade framework is a structured system used to evaluate and categorize the quality of evidence in research, primarily to inform clinical decision-making and healthcare practices. It provides a systematic approach to assess the strength, validity, and applicability of findings, guiding practitioners in determining how much weight to give to different types of evidence when making decisions about patient care.
Hierarchy of Evidence: The hierarchy of evidence is a system used to rank the strength and reliability of research studies and evidence, often depicted as a pyramid. This concept helps in determining the quality of evidence, guiding healthcare professionals in making informed decisions based on the best available information. Understanding this hierarchy is crucial for effectively searching and appraising evidence to support clinical practices and health outcomes.
Knowledge-to-action framework: The knowledge-to-action framework is a structured approach that facilitates the translation of research evidence into effective practice and policy change. This framework emphasizes the importance of not only gathering knowledge but also implementing it in a way that leads to measurable improvements in outcomes, particularly in healthcare settings. By bridging the gap between knowledge and action, this framework addresses the challenges of effectively integrating evidence-based practices into everyday decision-making processes.
Meta-analysis: Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to identify patterns, discrepancies, or overall effects within a specific area of research. This method enhances the power and precision of findings by aggregating data from various sources, making it a vital tool in evidence-based practice and decision-making. It also plays a crucial role in assessing the effectiveness of interventions, which can further support interprofessional collaboration in healthcare settings.
Organizational culture: Organizational culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, and practices that shape the behavior and attitudes of individuals within an organization. This culture influences how employees interact, make decisions, and approach their work, impacting overall performance and effectiveness. It can either facilitate or hinder the adoption of new practices, including evidence-based strategies, and plays a crucial role in managing change within healthcare organizations.
Ottawa Decision Support Framework: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework is a structured approach that helps individuals and groups make informed healthcare decisions by integrating evidence-based information, patient preferences, and contextual factors. It emphasizes the importance of collaboration between healthcare providers and patients to ensure that decisions align with the patient's values and circumstances.
P-value: A p-value is a statistical measure that helps to determine the significance of results obtained from hypothesis testing. It indicates the probability of observing the data, or something more extreme, assuming that the null hypothesis is true. A smaller p-value suggests stronger evidence against the null hypothesis, which is crucial for making informed decisions in research and analyzing healthcare data.
Randomized Controlled Trial: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a scientific study design used to evaluate the effectiveness of a treatment or intervention by randomly assigning participants to either the treatment group or the control group. This method helps eliminate biases and ensures that the results are due to the intervention itself rather than other factors, making it a gold standard for testing new therapies or approaches in healthcare.
Statistical significance: Statistical significance is a measure that helps determine whether the results of a study are likely to be true and not due to random chance. It provides a way to assess the strength of the evidence against a null hypothesis, typically indicating that an observed effect is unlikely to have occurred if there were no actual effect in the population. Understanding statistical significance is crucial when evaluating research findings and interpreting healthcare data.
Systematic Review: A systematic review is a structured and comprehensive method of evaluating and synthesizing research studies on a specific topic to provide reliable evidence for decision-making. It involves systematically searching for relevant studies, appraising their quality, and summarizing the findings to inform practice and policy. This approach ensures that healthcare professionals can access the best available evidence, which is crucial for improving patient outcomes and fostering effective interprofessional collaboration.