Please assist by providing a response to the following questions/response below. Please assist with providing a thought-provoking response to the following reply. Contributions are evaluated on presentation of a meaningful ‘informed opinion,’ i.e., synthesis of your preparation on the topic, interaction with peers and faculty, and ongoing learning. Useful posts may include and are not limited to: Posting your ‘take’ on the issue, this is informed by your preparation, not a ‘gut reaction.’ Asking critical thinking questions, offering alternate interpretations and additional insights, Contributing to the learning of the group.
Please take a moment to read the following article and select the document for response.
PICOT Question: In patients with Severe Hemophilia, does prophylactic infusion education increase compliance with infusion therapy compared to those without education after 6 months?
Publication bias is a type of dissemination bias, which deals with how research findings can be overrepresented when their findings are favorable or statistically significant (Polit & Beck, 2021). Sometimes, editors only publish findings with certain outcomes or based on the strength of the findings. This leaves many relevant studies and findings out of peer-reviewed journals. Studies in which the result in statistical insignificance are less likely to be published, which could alter the overview estimation of effects when looking at the evidence (Polit & Beck, 2021).
Being aware of publication bias allows the researcher to develop strategies to assess for and in some cases avoid it (Polit & Beck, 2021). There are three suggestions to help alleviate the effects of publication bias. Firstly, unpublished studies should be included in the search. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020) recommends searches include at least two grey literature resources. This can be accomplished by searching for related content and studies outside of databases such as Clinicaltrials.gov and Grey Literature Report (Polit & Beck, 2021; Cochrane Consumers and Communication, n.d.). Secondly, identification should be done during the review. This can be done using funnel plots which evaluate the effect size and the degree of the effect (Polit & Beck, 2021). Researchers can then compare the published studies with the unpublished studies and gain insight into possible publication bias. Lastly, various statistical strategies can be used to help address and minimize publication bias (Polit & Beck, 2021).
A systematic review gathers data from primary studies about a particular interest or research question by using strict protocols that are reproducible and valid (Polit & Beck, 2021; Caldwell & Bennett, 2020). This differs from a literature search as it is more detailed and critical of the evidence (Caldwell & Bennett, 2020). In the 6S hierarchy, systematic reviews are considered Level 1 evidence (Polit & Beck, 2021). Conducting a systematic review will support my research by providing solid evidence with reliable data from valid studies.
There are many different types of systematic reviews depending on the research being conducted. The purpose of a systematic review is to gather relevant data that is of good quality to match the question being asked (Cochrane Consumers and Communication, n.d.). My project is focusing on quantitative data collection so it is likely my review will include meta-analyses. This takes the data from each study and creates an effect size and magnitude, which allows relationships to be identified and to what degree (Polit & Beck, 2021). This allows for objective data that is repeatable and creates a measurable way to determine the true existence of a relationship (Polit & Beck, 2021). A reason to exclude meta-analyses is if the collected studies are not comparable in research design (Polit & Beck, 2021).
Conducting a systematic review requires planning. The planning phase is important because you can establish key criteria such as eligibility, study intervention, and the development of a review protocol. Polit and Beck (2021) suggest ten steps to facilitate the systematic review process. The initial work should include the formation of a necessary clinical question and the formation of a team to help with gathering research and reviewing the quality of the studies (Polit & Beck, 2021). The clinical question and inclusion criteria have been set. Fortunately, the nurse practitioner at the hemophilia treatment center is familiar with these processes and has conducted systematic reviews so I will have assistance from a content expert. This planning will need to take place relatively soon because systematic reviews require some time to execute, sometimes as long as 18 months (Polit & Beck, 2021; Cochrane Consumers and Communication, n.d.).
References
Caldwell, P., & Bennett, T. (2020). Easy guide to conducting a systematic review. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 56(6), 853-856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.14853
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, June 4). Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library. Systematic Reviews. Retrieved August 6, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/library/researchguides/systematicreviews.html
Cochrane Consumers and Communication. (n.d.). What are systematic reviews? [Video]. Cochrane. Retrieved August 6, 2023, from https://www.cochrane.org/our-evidence/what-are-systematic-reviews
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Your comprehensive overview of publication bias and systematic reviews is highly informative. Publication bias indeed presents a critical challenge in research, potentially skewing the overall estimation of effects by favoring positive or statistically significant outcomes. Your insight into strategies to mitigate publication bias, such as including unpublished studies and employing statistical techniques, underscores the importance of robust evidence synthesis.
Regarding your plan to use systematic reviews to support your research, your approach is well-founded. As you mentioned, systematic reviews offer Level 1 evidence in the 6S hierarchy, providing high-quality and reproducible data. Your intention to focus on quantitative data collection, potentially utilizing meta-analyses, reflects a strategic approach to quantifying relationships objectively. The ability to determine effect size and magnitude aids in drawing meaningful conclusions from the synthesized evidence.
The process of conducting a systematic review is undoubtedly rigorous and requires careful planning. Your alignment with the ten steps suggested by Polit and Beck (2021) showcases your commitment to a thorough and methodical approach. Formulating a clear clinical question, establishing inclusion criteria, and forming a proficient review team are pivotal components that contribute to the validity and reliability of your systematic review.
Your engagement with a nurse practitioner experienced in systematic reviews at the hemophilia treatment center is an excellent initiative. Their expertise will not only guide you through the intricacies of the review process but also expedite the execution of your research plan. Given the potentially extended timeline of systematic reviews, your proactive stance to begin planning well in advance is commendable.
In conclusion, your understanding of publication bias and your strategic utilization of systematic reviews exemplify your commitment to rigorous and evidence-based research. By addressing publication bias and adhering to systematic review protocols, you are poised to generate impactful findings that contribute to the body of knowledge in your area of interest.
As a renowned provider of the best writing services, we have selected unique features which we offer to our customers as their guarantees that will make your user experience stress-free.
Unlike other companies, our money-back guarantee ensures the safety of our customers' money. For whatever reason, the customer may request a refund; our support team assesses the ground on which the refund is requested and processes it instantly. However, our customers are lucky as they have the least chances to experience this as we are always prepared to serve you with the best.
Plagiarism is the worst academic offense that is highly punishable by all educational institutions. It's for this reason that Peachy Tutors does not condone any plagiarism. We use advanced plagiarism detection software that ensures there are no chances of similarity on your papers.
Sometimes your professor may be a little bit stubborn and needs some changes made on your paper, or you might need some customization done. All at your service, we will work on your revision till you are satisfied with the quality of work. All for Free!
We take our client's confidentiality as our highest priority; thus, we never share our client's information with third parties. Our company uses the standard encryption technology to store data and only uses trusted payment gateways.
Anytime you order your paper with us, be assured of the paper quality. Our tutors are highly skilled in researching and writing quality content that is relevant to the paper instructions and presented professionally. This makes us the best in the industry as our tutors can handle any type of paper despite its complexity.
Recent Comments