scholarly journals Protocol for a Systematic Review: E‐learning of Evidence‐Based Health Care to Increase EBHC Competencies in Healthcare Professionals

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anke Rohwer ◽  
Eva Rehfuess ◽  
Taryn Young
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
E Learning ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care

scholarly journals From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Kung ◽  
Francesco Chiappelli ◽  
Olivia O Cajulis ◽  
Raisa Avezova ◽  
George Kossan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Validation Data ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care

Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care.

Meta-synthesis and evidence-based health care - a method for systematic review

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 1027-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Korhonen ◽  
Tuovi Hakulinen-Viitanen ◽  
Virpi Jylhä ◽  
Arja Holopainen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care

The Preschool Stuttering Screen for Health Care Professionals

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
Joseph Donaher ◽  
Christina Deery ◽  
Sarah Vogel
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Preschool Children ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Developmental Profile

Healthcare professionals require a thorough understanding of stuttering since they frequently play an important role in the identification and differential diagnosis of stuttering for preschool children. This paper introduces The Preschool Stuttering Screen for Healthcare Professionals (PSSHP) which highlights risk factors identified in the literature as being associated with persistent stuttering. By integrating the results of the checklist with a child’s developmental profile, healthcare professionals can make better-informed, evidence-based decisions for their patients.

„Dann können wir endlich zeigen, dass das was bringt“

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (05) ◽  
pp. 225-231
Author(s):  
Andrea Schaller ◽  
Anne-Kathrin Exner ◽  
Burkhard Wild ◽  
Odile Sauzet
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Health Care

ZusammenfassungDie Prinzipien der evidenzbasierten Medizin werden inzwischen auf nahezu alle Gesundheitsberufe angewandt. Damit stehen Wissenschaftler und Praktiker in der Sport- und Bewegungstherapie nicht nur vor der Herausforderung zielgruppen- und Setting-spezifische Interventionen zu entwickeln, sondern diese auch adäquat zu evaluieren. Trotz zahlreicher Studien ist die externe Evidenz für die Wirksamkeit von Bewegungsförderung allerdings gering. Dies ist neben der oft geringen methodischen Qualität der einzelnen Studien auch auf die großen Herausforderungen bezüglich der klinischen Relevanz von Studienergebnissen zurückzuführen.Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt zunächst das Konzept der evidenzbasierten Gesundheitsversorgung (Evidence-Based Health Care) (EbHC) vor. Davon ausgehend werden wichtige Arbeitsschritte bei der Planung einer Interventionsstudie vorgestellt, wobei insbesondere der Aspekt der Relevanz fokussiert wird.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document