Why They are Top of the Literature Mountain

4 MIN READ

Anytime I find a systematic review or meta-analysis while I’m searching the nursing literature, I feel exhilarated—like I had just hiked up a tall mountain and was rewarded with a breathtaking view.

Why do these types of articles thrill me? Because they combine several individual articles into one piece. Systematic reviews are an exhaustive survey of all literature around a specific topic summarized into one report. Meta-analyses similarly pool data from multiple studies and analyze them all together as if there were one study. Because both combine various studies into one article, they can save you time while searching the literature. For example, instead of reading five individual studies with small sample sizes, meta-analyses will combine the data from the five studies and analyze them into one, increasing the sample size, which could subsequently increase your confidence in their findings. Systematic reviews often review five, ten, or even twenty articles, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, and presenting evidence-based recommendations. Instead of reading each of those articles individually, you only need to read one article. This is why systematic reviews and meta-analyses are at the top of most levels of evidence grading systems.⁶ for qualitative research. By using standardized formats, authors can be sure to include all the necessary information that you, the reader, need to know to determine if this is information you can trust. You can read more about PRISMA here and ENTREQ here to understand these sets of guidelines.

Similarly, you can use PRISMA and ENTREQ as guides when you review articles as well. The tÍable below shows the sorts of evaluative questions you should use when reviewing a systematic review or meta-analysis.

Now that you are comfortable evaluating these powerful and crucial types of nursing literature, you can use your knowledge to find these exhilarating treasures of nursing evidence-based practice recommendations. No hiking boots are required.

Criteria for evaluating a systematic review or meta-analysis⁷

Does the review have clear objectives (is the review answering a straightforward, focused clinical question?)
Are the methods by which the evidence was found clearly defined and adequate (was there a detailed and thorough search of the literature?)
Were there pre-defined, explicit criteria for what studies would be included, and did the analysis include only those studies that fit the inclusion criteria?
Were there clinical appraisals of the quality of the primary studies and their results?
Was there structured reporting of the results with quantitative pooling of the data, if appropriate?
Was there appropriate analysis and presentation of results?
Did the review include interpretation of the data, including implications for clinical practice and further research?

References:

1. Paterson, M.H., Barnason, S., Donnelly, B., Hill, K., Miley, H., Riggs, L., & Whiteman, K. (2014). Choosing the best evidence to guide practice: Application of AACN levels of evidence. Critical Care Nurse, 34(2), 58-68. 2. Burns, P. B., Rohrich, R. J., & Chung, K. C. (2011). The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 128(1), 305. 3. Toklu, H. Z. (2015). Promoting evidence-based practice in pharmacies. Integrated pharmacy research & practice, 4, 127. 4. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. 2021. Levels of Evidence. Retrieved May 14, 2021, from Home - 2020 - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (cebm.net). 5. Haber, S. L., Fairman, K. A., & Sclar, D. A. (2015). Principles in the evaluation of systematic reviews. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 35(11), 1077-1087. 6. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC medical research methodology, 12(1), 1-8. 7. Bigby, M. (2014). Understanding and evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Indian journal of dermatology, 59(2), 134.