Submission Ide: c58df2d4-c1ec-4671-ac57-1c45a4da8c7d

41% SIMILARITY SCORE 3   CITATION ITEMS 6   GRAMMAR ISSUES 0   FEEDBACK COMMENT Internet Source   41% Institution   0%

Charlotte Braima

Ealuatingevidence….docx

Summary

 288 Words

Discussion

There are various approaches to examining evidence. Meta-analysis and Systematic

reviews are the main and most common methods of evaluating evidence. These methods assist in  assist, assistance (help): assist  help

Discussion

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Details

Instructor’s Name

Date

determining the validity and relevance of the evidence. Meta-analysis and Systematic reviews

are very reliable approaches to examining evidence levels and are widely used by researchers.

The two approaches of evaluating evidence have some similarities and differences.

The following are the similarities between meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Both

methods are believed to be the highest quality of evidence for decision-making in the clinical

setting and can be utilized above all the other approaches of evidence evaluation (Singh, 2017).

Both meta-analysis and systematic reviews involve data collection from different sources and

then summarize the results and evidence of the various study articles.

However, the two methods have numerous differences. Systematic reviews involve

collecting and summarising all the empirical evidence, while the meta-analysis method uses

statistical approaches when summarizing results from studies. A meta-analysis method is a

statistical approach utilized to combine the numerical results and findings from studies when

possible; however, the systematic review method is a systematic, formal and structured method

of reviewing all the topic’s relevant literature (Wu, Song, & Zhao, 2018). The meta-analysis

rationale is that through sample combination from various samples of different studies, the

overall sample size is enhanced, for reliable findings, while the rationale for systemic reviews is

that pooling data together from various sources can result in greater information reliability.

References

Singh, S. (2017). How to conduct and interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clinical

and translational gastroenterology, 8(5), e93.

Wu, W., Song, Y., & Zhao, W. (2018). Evaluating evidence reliability on the basis of

intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Information, 9(12), 298.

 Web Content: https://www.yourhomeworksolutions.com/downloads/qualitative-method/…

 Passive voice: are believed to be

 Web Content: https://www.yourhomeworksolutions.com/downloads/qualitative-method/…

 Spelling mistake: summarising  summarizing

 Web Content: https://www.yourhomeworksolutions.com/downloads/qualitative-method/…

 Spelling mist…: translational  transnational

 Spelling mist…: gastroenterol…  Gastroenterol…

 Spelling mistake: intuitionistic

References