Please respond with a paragraph to the following question, add citations and references:
There are several different methods available to evaluate evidence in nursing. I would choose to use a systemic review and a meta-analysis. They both gives results by using and combining data from studies on similar research topics. The meta-analysis is a system that uses statistic methods for summarizing outcomes of the study. A meta-analysis is a valid, objective and scientific method of analyzing and combining different results (Ahn & Kang, 2018). When the effect of the treatment is accurate and is consistent from one study to another, then the meta -analysis could used to identify common impacts. I would consider meta-analysis to be a very powerful sources in evidence evaluation. However, some results could be misleading due to violations of creating a sound meta-analysis.
A systemic review provides answers to research questions which is well defined by a collection and summary pf information (Ahn & Kang, 2018). Systemic reviews assist in identifying, assessing and summarizing the findings of all individual studies which are relevant about medical problems, thus creating the evidence available as more accessible towards the decision makers. The limitations of systemic reviews are that it needs a team and it needs enough data for arriving at conclusions. If one has a lack of understanding about systemic reviews and meta-analyses, it can lead to incorrect outcomes.
Its easy to confuse the two methods listed: A systemic review is an objective, reproducible method to find answers to research questions. This is done by collecting studies related to the question, reviewing and analyzing their results. The meta-analysis uses statistical methods on estimates from two or more studies to form an estimate. When performing both methods, if the quality of the studies are not properly evaluated then then results can be biased and the outcomes can be incorrect.
Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systemic review and meta-analysis. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 71(2), 103-112. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103