Evaluating Evidence

Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews
Name
Institution
Evaluating evidence refers to the ability of a researcher to criticise or to evaluate the merits of different arguments while developing a conviction in the argument. Evidence evolution makes the researcher grantees validity. These methods are essential in offering support to other authors or criticising the work that they have done. Evaluating evidence can be used to tell the quality relevance as well as the significance of research that has been done by the researcher. Several methods can be used for evaluating evidence. However, the most commonly used methods of assessing evidence include; Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews.
These two methods can be compared against one another to see the positives and negatives of each one of them. Usually, there is a misconception of the similarities between systematic meta-analysis reviews. There are others who use them systematically. However, the two methods not the same and are different in many ways (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman, 2009). Systematic review refers to a detailed and chronological method of gathering evidence to answer patients that are well defined. The review on how to be transparent in appraising and synthesising existing evidence (Rossi, and D’Addario, 2008). On the other hand, meta-analysis refers to a more statistical approach that combines data in a numeric form from different sources of study. Meta-analysis is used in the context of a review. Systematic reviews usually seek to reduce bias at different stages of the review process.

Systematic reviews that are registered within organisations are reliable as authors must adhere to the standards set for reporting their work. There are various stages of conducting a systematic review. The first is presenting a research patient an idea in a proposal. The proposal must also contain methods that will be used. It then proceeds to the literature search with search results identified in the pre-specified studies. The study is then appraised for the quality where the synthesis of the evidence.
References
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4), 264-269.Rossi, A. C., & D’Addario, V. (2008). Laser therapy and serial amnioreduction as treatment for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: a met analysis and review of literature. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 198(2), 147-152.