Discussion response
Systematic Reviews
Epidemiology
Post substantive responses to two colleagues who expressed a differing view to your own in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on your peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about meta-analyses, ask a question to further the Discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique, supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the Discussion.
PEER #1
Systematic reviews are comprehensive, methodical, and transparent reviews of current literature that support theories (Siddaway et al., 2019). Systematic reviews are transparent in that they explicitly outline inclusion and exclusion criteria so that if the same review were done again the researchers would be able to produce the same results. The benefits (strength) of using systematic reviews are that they provide a generalized consensus on what current research has identified and are reproducible. Limitations to using systematic reviews would be how thoroughly a topic has been studied and the inability to control published study methodology (Melnyk et al., 2020). I have found this to be a barrier in finding studies on the field of nursing forensics and must presume that other newer fields such as cannabis nursing may not have as much research conducted by nurses that would help guide their practice. Systematic reviews can then be broken down by the type of research that was included in the review quantitative data (meta-analysis), or qualitative data (meta-synthesis).
A meta-analysis specifically examines quantitative data that was captured during a research study to determine the relationship between variables and to identify research designs used to study the topic (Siddaway et al., 2019). Meta-analysis summarizes the effect sizes, standard error of the weighted mean, or the confidence interval of the studies to determine if there is consistency in research designs and outcomes (Siddaway et al., 2019). The strengths of using meta-analysis are that they produce meaningful and less biased evidence and are relatively inexpensive to conduct (Seidler et al., 2020). Time, effort, and skill set are all the researchers would need to have to conduct a meta-analysis which is a clear benefit when compared to conducting a study which is often time-consuming and involves finding research participants and going through a lengthy approval process. Limitations to using meta-analysis are the variability in the study design, the inability to control or properly evaluate confounding bias across several studies, and variability in sampling error (Siddaway et al., 2019).
My Position
Literature reviews and meta-analyses are highly reliable forms of evidence as they examine multiple different studies to identify a consensus among several different researchers. Meta-analyses are also highly valuable as the studies are looking at quantitative data points which are hard to mis-interpret if the study design and publication are well written.
References
Melnyk, B., Kelly, S., & Bird, S. (2020). Interventions to improve mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses: A systematic review.
American Journal of Health Promotion,
34(8).
to an external site.
Seidler, A., Hunter, K., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J., Ghersi, D., & Askie, L. (2020). Prospective meta-analyses and Cochrane’s role in embracing next-generation methodologies.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
to an external site.
Siddaway, A., Wood, A., & Hedges, L. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A Best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta syntheses.
Annual Reviews of Psychology,
70, 747–770.
to an external site.
PEER #2
Main Response
Results from multiple studies on related subjects are combined and analyzed to create systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on a particular topic by synthesizing the findings of multiple studies. At the same time, meta-analyses quantify the overall effect of an intervention or exposure by pooling data from individual studies, increasing the statistical power and generalizability of the results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses help inform evidence-based decisions (Iddagoda & Flicker, 2023).
Systematic Reviews
The systematic review process involves starting with a research statement or question. The question at hand frequently encompasses the different parts of PICO(T): Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and occasionally time. Systematic reviews are based on an observational, retrospective study design, making them prone to random and systematic errors (Iddagoda & Flicker, 2023).
As demonstrated by Melnyk et al. (2020), the epidemiologic study on interventions to improve mental wellbeing, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses was done by completing a systematic review of literature. This study aimed to answer the research question: “What are the most effective interventions for improving mental wellbeing, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses?”. It is to be noted that there were inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The Limitations of Systematic Reviews
The limitations of systematic reviews include potential bias in the selection of studies and the quality of the included studies. Additionally, the systemic review by Melnyk et al. (2020) also had the limitation of only choosing English language studies and may have missed valuable research published in other languages. Despite these limitations, the systematic review provides valuable insights into interventions that can improve the overall wellbeing of healthcare professionals.
Meta-Analyses
Meta-analyses employ statistical methods that enable hypothesis generation and testing. In epidemiologic studies, the validity of meta-analyses is established through the provision of a more precise estimation of the impact of a treatment, risk factor, or disease on other outcomes, in comparison to any individual study that may have contributed to the pooled analysis. In meta-analysis, the report of the research methodology and findings is of utmost importance in upholding the validity and adaptability of the outcomes obtained. Through the responsible conduct and reporting of meta-analytic studies, researchers can make significant contributions to the healthcare domain and facilitate the advancement of evidence-based interventions for healthcare practitioners (Haidich, 2010).
The Strength of Meta-Analysis
Meta-analysis accurately estimates the effects of interest by combining primary studies, thereby increasing the sample size and, consequently, the power to examine those effects (Lee, 2019). However, they, too, have limitations, such as the risk of publication bias and heterogeneity among the included studies. The limitations of meta-analysis must be considered and addressed to ensure the results’ reliability and accuracy. Researchers must be diligent in their selection and inclusion of studies and in their interpretation of the findings (Haidich, 2010).
Conclusion
In conclusion, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are powerful tools for synthesizing research findings and providing a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of interest.
References
Haidich, A. B. (2010).
Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.
.
Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37.
to an external site.
Iddagoda, M. T., & Flicker, L. (2023, October 10). Clinical systematic reviews – a brief overview.
BMC Medical Research Methodology,
23(1).
to an external site.
Lee, Y. H. (2019, October 1).
Strengths and Limitations of Meta-Analysis. the Korean Journal of Medicine.
to an external site.
Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020, April 27). Interventions to Improve Mental Health, Well-Being, Physical Health, and Lifestyle Behaviors in Physicians and Nurses: A Systematic Review.
American Journal of Health Promotion,
34(8), 929–941.
to an external site.
