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 ...

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 prioriti zation 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:

5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56652/
Reply | Quote & Reply