Name two different methods for evaluating evidence

Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods

There are different methods of evaluating evidence. The two common methods of evaluating evidence are Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The two methods help in the determination of the relevance and validity of the evidence. The two methods of evaluating evidence are both similar and different

Similarities

Both the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses are considered the highest quality of evidence for clinical decision making and can be used above all the other methods of evaluating evidence

Both the methods for evaluating evidence are similar because they involve the collection of data from different sources and summarizing the all the evidence and results of the studies

Differences

While systematic review collects and summarizes all the empirical evidence, the meta-analysis uses statistical methods to summarize the results of the studies

Second, Meta-analysis is a statistical method used to combine the numerical results from such studies, if it is possible to do. On the other hand, Systematic review is a formal, systematic and structured approach to review all the relevant literature on a topic

Third, the rationale for Meta-analysis is that through the combination of samples from different studies the overall sample size is increased, while the rationale for systematic reviews is that when data is pooled together from different sources a greater reliability would be obtained

Reference

Melnyk, B. M. (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: a guide to best practice (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.