QUESTION
-
-
Week 3: Appraising Systematic Reviews
Download the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool and the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool located in the Student Resource Center under "Project & Practicum Resources."
DEAR WRITER, PLEASE I WILL DOWNLOAD THIS FOR YOU.Using the practice problem you selected in Week 1,( PRACTICE PROBLEM IS DIABETES TYPE 1) continue your appraisal of the evidence by analyzing two systematic reviews. Conduct a library search for two systematic reviews addressing this problem. Appraise the two systematic reviews using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool.
After appraising and determining the Level of Evidence and Grade of Quality for your selected systematic reviews, summarize your findings on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool.
Include your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool that includes your two systematic reviews as an attachment with your initial post. Also, include PDF versions of your selected two systematic reviews with your initial discussion post. Our faculty team will review both your two systematic reviews and Include your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool.
Analyze the evidence summary of the two systematic reviews to address the following.
Does the systematic review answer the research question? Explain your rationale.
Was the search comprehensive and reproducible?
Did each systematic review include a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed?
Based on this evidence summary, would you consider either or both of these systematic reviews as support for your selected practice problem? Explain your rationale.please include a link for both systematic reviews and attach the evidence table to your initial post
-
| Subject | Nursing | Pages | 2 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
|
Article # |
Author & Date |
Evidence Type |
Sample, Sample Size & Setting |
Study findings that help answer the EBP question |
Limitations |
Evidence Level & Quality |
|
1 |
O'Hara et al. (2016) |
A systematic Review (PRISMA) |
Sample: Young Adults with type 1 diabetes Sample Size: 2,048 studies (only 18 were included) Setting: North America, Canada, Europe, Israel and Australia
|
-This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of both the quantitative and qualitative literature so as to identify and describe the effectiveness of interventions meant to improve clinical, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes for the young adults with type 1 diabetes. The findings were inconclusive owing to the little amount of evidence found relating to the effectiveness of these interventions on outcomes among the young adults with type 1 diabetes. The heterogeneity among the studies prevented the identification of high-quality, well designed interventions. |
- Significant methodological issues existed in the study design of a majority of the included studies. - Only one RCT was included in this review and over half of the studies featured small sample sizes of less than 40. -The assessment of behavioral and psychosocial outcomes was done using non validated rather than validated self-reporting. -important factors such as insurance coverage and geographic location were not analyzed. -The studies were highly heterogeneous.
|
Level-II Quality-B |
|
2 |
Wang et al. (2019) |
A systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA and MOOSE) |
Sample: Type 1 diabetes patients Sample Size: 5,302 (Only 8 were included) Setting: United States, Europe, Australia
|
-This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of mHealth as compared to other interventions meant to control HbA1c levels in both children and adults with T1DM. The findings show that the mobile health interventions are effective among T1DM patients. The HbA1c levels was reduced for adults, for those who used mobile applications, and when the duration of the intervention was long-term. |
-Some of the studies used features small sample sizes - Some publications may have been overlooked during the search for literature thereby leading to possible bias -A certain degree of heterogeneity in some studies is evident -Some studies feature short intervention times |
Level-I Quality-B |
References
O'Hara, M., C., Hynes, L., O'Donnell, M., Nery, N., Byrne, M. Heller, S., R., & Dinneen, S. F. (2016). A systematic review of interventions to improve outcomes for young adults with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 34, 753– 769. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13276
Wang, X., Shu, W., Du, J. et al. (2019). Mobile health in the management of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Endocr Disord 19, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-019-0347-6