Evidence-Based Management

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Morrell ◽  
Mark Learmonth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Professional Practices ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Nursing Turnover ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Do So

This chapter outlines the case for “evidence-based management” then adopts a critical perspective. To do so, it focuses on a recurring feature of evidence-based writings: the management-as-medicine motif (MAMM). Advocates draw on MAMM in two ways. First, they promote the same model of knowledge production as in medicine, e.g. championing ‘systematic reviews’. Second, they rely on comparisons between management and medicine as professional practices. Identified here are consequent problems and a ‘systematic review’ is considered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This concerns a management phenomenon: nursing turnover and there are now five versions of the review. Bizarrely, these never actually review any evidence and the different versions are incompatible. This shows how the protocols of ‘systematic’ reviews do not necessarily lead to superior evidence, instead they can disguise inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It also exemplifies problems with MAMM.

scholarly journals Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽  
Ranak B. Trivedi ◽  
Jennifer McDuffie ◽  
Ian Kronish ◽  
Dinesh Benjamin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Brief Psychotherapy ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

scholarly journals Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Antonio Salvador-Oliván ◽  
Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca ◽  
Rosario Arquero-Avilés
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Average Precision ◽  
Search Filter ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Relevant Publication

Objective: Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods: Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results: The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed’s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions: The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.

scholarly journals Explaining what works: using causal chain analysis in systematic reviewsExplaining what works: using causal chain analysis in systematic reviews

10.51744/cmb4 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard White ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Causal Chain ◽  
Farmer Field Schools ◽  
What Works ◽  
Chain Analysis ◽  
Field Schools ◽  
Global Evidence ◽  
Do So

Systematic reviews summarise and synthesise the global evidence about an intervention. By incorporating causal chain analysis, a systematic review moves beyond the question of ‘does it work?’ to ‘why does it work, for whom, under what circumstances and at what cost?’. The CEDIL Methods Brief 4, ‘Using causal chain analysis in systematic reviews’, lays out what causal chain analysis is, the benefits of using it, and how to do so. The brief provides guidance on conducting a causal chain analysis by illustrating with an example of a systematic review on farmer field schools.

scholarly journals Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (15) ◽  
pp. 5394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elvira Ortiz-Sánchez ◽  
Almudena Velando-Soriano ◽  
Laura Pradas-Hernández ◽  
Keyla Vargas-Román ◽  
Jose L. Gómez-Urquiza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Social Networks ◽  
Economic Benefit ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Personal Stories ◽  
Final Sample ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Harmful Effects ◽  
Do So

The aim of this study was to analyze social networks’ information about the anti-vaccine movement. A systematic review was performed in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and CUIDEN databases. The search equations were: “vaccine AND social network” and “vaccine AND (Facebook[title] OR Twitter[title] OR Instagram[title] OR YouTube[title])”. The final sample was n = 12, including only articles published in the last 10 years, in English or Spanish. Social networks are used by the anti-vaccine groups to disseminate their information. To do this, these groups use different methods, including bots and trolls that generate anti-vaccination messages and spread quickly. In addition, the arguments that they use focus on possible harmful effects and the distrust of pharmaceuticals, promoting the use of social networks as a resource for finding health-related information. The anti-vaccine groups are able to use social networks and their resources to increase their number and do so through controversial arguments, such as the economic benefit of pharmaceuticals or personal stories of children to move the population without using reliable or evidence-based content.

scholarly journals Systematic Review and its Relationship with Evidence-Based Practice in Health

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 824-831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugenia Urra Medina ◽  
René Mauricio Barría Pailaquilén
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The World

Systematic reviews (SR) have gained relevance in the world and Latin America because of their credibility in the search, compilation, arranging and analysis of the information obtained from research about health interventions, during a period of time. Consequently, evidence-based practice uses SR as a way to capture the best evidence of clinical effectiveness. This article reviews SR methodology, process, and its usefulness in health professions like nursing and medicine.

Interventions improving health professionals’ practice for addressing patients’ weight management behaviours: systematic review of reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahareh Yazdizadeh ◽  
Ruth Walker ◽  
Helen Skouteris ◽  
Ellinor K Olander ◽  
Briony Hill
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
System Level ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Physical Activity Advice ◽  
Diet And Physical Activity

Abstract Health professionals require education and training to implement obesity management guidelines and ultimately impact on the health outcomes experienced by their patients. Therefore, a systematic review of systematic reviews that evaluated interventions designed to change the practice of health professionals when addressing diet and physical activity with their patients was conducted. MEDLINE Complete; Cochrane database of systematic reviews; PsycINFO; CINAHL Complete; Global Health; Embase; INFORMIT: Health Subset; Health System Evidence and RX for change were searched in March 2019, with no date or language limits. Identified references underwent screening, full-text analyses and data extraction in duplicate. The search identified 15 230 references. Five systematic reviews that provided a narrative syntheses of a combined 38 studies were included. Health professional participants generally reported being satisfied with the training interventions. Heterogeneity between and within included reviews, non-controlled designs of individual studies and low quality of evidence at an individual study level and review level made it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding what interventions are most effective in changing health professionals’ knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, attitudes and practice. However, similar gaps in the literature were identified across included reviews. Key areas that could be addressed in future interventions including organization and system-level barriers to providing advice, health professionals’ attitudes and motivation and weight stigma have been highlighted. Health professionals and patients could be more involved in the planning and development of interventions that work towards improving diet and physical activity advice and support provided in healthcare.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals Potion or Poison? Coenzyme Q10

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 164
Author(s):  
Shane Scahill
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Coenzyme Q10 ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Routine Administration ◽  
Clinical Benefits

SUMMARY MESSAGE: There are no Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reporting the clinical efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in statin-associated myopathy. Coenzyme Q10 is generally well tolerated. A systematic review suggests that rather than hypothesising about potential clinical benefits, large clinical studies are required to allow robust systematic review. Further, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine administration of concomitant coenzyme Q10 for prevention of statin-associated myopathy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document