Summary
A systematic review is a process of systematic identification, appraisal and summaries of all the primary studies of the highest level of evidence based on the explicit and reproducible methodologies. A case report describes the presentation and/or course of a disease. Individual case reports are useful for formulating hypothesis and are extremely helpful in the acquisition of evidence in the absence of any other information. Systematic reviews and case reports have been placed on the top and bottom of the hierarchy of evidence, respectively. However, modifications in the hierarchy pyramid have also been suggested. The current review provides succinct summaries of the level of evidence provided by systematic review and individual case
…show more content…
Many important parameters such as disease history, clinical description, diagnosis, treatment or prognosis might be explained to the veterinary profession. Case report could present a novel finding; explain an undocumented course of a familiar disease or description of a rare disease. New and emerging diseases and rare complications of interventions could be documented. A case report could provide early warning systems for new and emerging diseases. Rare complications of interventions may be reported that may not be documented in other research trials. New and emerging diseases may be first described as a case report. They may serve as early indicators of novel developments, risks and diagnostic and therapeutic options. Individual case reports are useful for formulating hypothesis and are extremely helpful in the acquisition of evidence in the absence of any other information. Case reports are important particularly in studies of harm (unwanted events) which could not be readily studied in an intentional manner, or because of their rarity, cannot be studied prospectively (Elamin and Montori, 2012). However, the …show more content…
It is a process of systematic identification, appraisal and summaries of all the primary studies of the highest level of evidence based on the explicit and reproducible methodologies (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, Moberly et al., 2015; Greenhalgh, 2000; Cockcroft and Holmes, 2003). Ideally, most important research hypothesis should be tested more than once by different research teams and different locations. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis help to increase the evidence provided by individual studies. Many characteristics such as design characteristics (randomisation generation and concealment, masking, intention to treat analysis, quality of enrolment of study subjects), benefits and harms of clinical studies of various interventions could be compared. Systematic reviews produce the best available evidence (Guyatt et al., 2002) and could enhance applicability of this evidence through meta-analyses by increasing the precision of the estimates of treatment effect (Elamin and Montori, 2012). Meta-analysis is an optional component of a systematic review (Green, 2005). A systematic review has a high level of evidence and holds a high relevance to the real world. Systematic reviews use strict protocols to reduce bias by analysing already completed studies (Mithun et al., 2012). However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses could not reduce the biases present in the selected studies (Elamin
Sidebotham, P. (2012). What do serious case reviews achieve?. British Medical Journal . 97 (3), 189-192.
...n Article Nielsen et al (2013) Diagnostic Accuracy hierarchy methods is applied which is review on second level (II) i.e. Randomised Controlled Trial and Meta-Analysis in the Pyramid level. These are also considered as gold standard in hierarchy of research design for evaluating the safety of a treatment. Also therapeutic study method is applied where different patients of age groups are used to treat with two different temperatures. There are two different trial methods used in this study. Here the level of hierarchy is high so that we can trust the result based on the data provided. We can also provide and opportunities to collect useful information about adverse affect such as temperature control over cardiac arrest. In the Meta-Analysis method multiple treatment groups are been treated with each other. There is also observational study performed in the article.
This systematic review conducted by Takeda A, Taylor SJC, Taylor RS, Khan F, Krum H, Underwood M, (2012) sourced twenty-five trials, and the overall number of people of the collective trials included was 5,942. Interventions were classified and assessed using the following headings.-
My interest in and understanding of the field of veterinary science has only been heightened with the time I have spent on various valuable work experience placements over recent years, especially during the four weeks in small and mixed animal practices in England, Wales, and Ireland. Spending time in these four very different practices allowed me to observe a wide range of routine and emergency
Norkus, Christopher L. Veterinary Technician’s Manual for Small Animal Emergency and Critical Care. Chichester, West Sussex. UK: Ames. Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
Philip Mortimer BMJ: British Medical Journal , Vol. 321, No. 7269 (Nov. 4, 2000) , p. 1123
I hope I have helped you understand how canines get this disease and what your treatment options are. Also, the importance of keeping your pet on prevention.
1. The specific organism should be shown to be present in all cases of animals suffering from a specific disease but should not be found in healthy animals.
O'Brien, D. (2009). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In R. Mullner (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health services research. (pp. 1017-1021). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.4135/9781412971942
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association. 14 Nov. 2001: 2322. Academic Search Complete. Web.
Blowey, R. W. (1990). A Veterinary Book for Dairy Farmer (Third ed.). Old Pont Publishing Ltd.
Furthermore, meta-analysis can render previous assertions of results that impress to be not sustainable as favorable to be sustainable. One of the disadvantages of meta-analysis is the bias of the researcher in selection of information. However, credibility in the research results is achieved being mindful of bias through thru relations between theoretical ideas and empirical evidence, from such approach a harmonious unity of accuracy in an obtainable level of practicality for the organization (Swanson & Holton, 2005). Another significant benefit to the application of meta-analysis research is the discovery of further research criteria thru the methodology of cyclic research action for continuous redefining of the
This meta-analysis has helped me view myself and feel like an expert in my field of study, understanding the difficult requirements of success. Also, it has increased my confidence in the course I am currently undertaking. When there are stipulated search strategies and methodically data-base searches there is a very low possibility of having errors, brought about by gaps which contain crucial parts of a piece of work. I also made many mistakes and this sometimes is necessary. Because I made so many mistakes, I had to learn a lot more and spend a lot more time analyzing studies, which gave me a better understanding of diabetes as well, getting a better idea of how medications become used in clinical practice.
EBP changes according to the client and the particular case. The social worker has to examine all aspects before picking an intervention. A systematic review of multiple interventions research studies is one EBP that can be beneficial to generalist social work practice. My purpose for selecting this form of EBP is because every case, situation, or counseling can always benefit from researching previous treatment