Skip to Main Content
Library Homepage

Nursing

This research guide is created specifically for Nursing Courses and topics such as Evidence Based Practice and PICO Formatting. It will help with library resources like finding articles, using databases, and much more!

Evidence Based Practice Stages and Pyramid

 

WHAT IS EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE?

The most common definition of EBP is taken from Dr. David Sackett, a pioneer in evidence-based practice. EBP is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of the individual patient. It means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematicresearch." (Sackett D, 1996)

EBP is the integration of clinical expertise, patient values, and the best research evidence into the decision making process for patient care. Clinical expertise refers to the clinician's cumulated experience, education and clinical skills. The patient brings to the encounter his or her own personal and unique concerns, expectations, and values. The best evidence is usually found in clinically relevant research that has been conducted using sound methodology. (Sackett D, 2002) 

The difference between Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

A meta-analysis and a systematic review are both methods used to synthesize research findings, but they differ in their scope and methodology.

  1. Systematic Review:

    • Purpose: A systematic review aims to comprehensively collect, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies on a specific research question or topic.
    • Process: It follows a structured and predefined protocol that includes a thorough search of the literature, selection of studies based on strict criteria, assessment of the quality of included studies, and a qualitative or quantitative synthesis of the findings.
    • Outcome: The result is a detailed, unbiased summary of the evidence on the topic, often highlighting gaps in research and providing recommendations for practice or further study.
  2. Meta-Analysis:

    • Purpose: A meta-analysis is a subset of a systematic review that quantitatively combines the results of multiple studies to arrive at a single conclusion about the effect of a treatment or intervention.
    • Process: After identifying and selecting studies through a systematic review, a meta-analysis statistically aggregates the data from these studies, typically using effect sizes, to produce an overall estimate of the effect.
    • Outcome: The result is a more precise estimate of the effect size or association, often presented in the form of a pooled average with confidence intervals.

In summary, a systematic review can exist without a meta-analysis, but a meta-analysis is always part of a systematic review if the data allows for quantitative synthesis.

Common Articvle Types in EBP

Here are the basic types of scientific articles commonly used in evidence-based practice:

  1. Original Research Article (Empirical Study):

    • Purpose: Presents new research findings from original experiments, clinical trials, or observational studies.
    • Structure: Typically follows the IMRaD format—Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion.
    • Significance: Provides primary evidence on the effectiveness of interventions, diagnostic accuracy, or risk factors, contributing directly to evidence-based practice.
  2. Systematic Review:

    • Purpose: Synthesizes all relevant studies on a specific research question using a systematic and transparent method.
    • Structure: Includes a comprehensive literature search, selection criteria, quality assessment, and summary of findings.
    • Significance: Provides a high level of evidence by integrating results from multiple studies, often used to guide clinical practice guidelines.
  3. Meta-Analysis:

    • Purpose: Combines data from multiple studies (usually included in a systematic review) to produce a single, quantitative estimate of an intervention's effect.
    • Structure: Uses statistical techniques to aggregate results, typically presented with pooled effect sizes and confidence intervals.
    • Significance: Offers a more precise estimate of the effect size, often considered the highest level of evidence when available.
  4. Clinical Practice Guidelines:

    • Purpose: Provides evidence-based recommendations for clinicians on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of specific conditions.
    • Structure: Developed by expert panels, usually based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with graded recommendations.
    • Significance: Guides healthcare professionals in making informed decisions, ensuring that patient care is based on the best available evidence.
  5. Case Report/Case Series:

    • Purpose: Describes the clinical presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of a single patient (case report) or a small group of patients (case series).
    • Structure: Detailed account of individual cases, often highlighting unusual or novel aspects.
    • Significance: Provides evidence that may lead to the generation of new hypotheses or contribute to the body of knowledge on rare conditions.
  6. Cohort Studies:

    • Purpose: Observes a group of individuals over time to study the outcomes associated with specific exposures or interventions.
    • Structure: Follows participants prospectively or retrospectively, comparing outcomes between exposed and unexposed groups.
    • Significance: Provides evidence on the association between risk factors and outcomes, helping to inform clinical decision-making.
  7. Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT):

    • Purpose: Tests the effectiveness of an intervention by randomly assigning participants to an experimental group or a control group.
    • Structure: Includes randomization, blinding, and controlled conditions to reduce bias.
    • Significance: Considered the gold standard in clinical research for establishing causality and guiding evidence-based practice.

These types of articles form the backbone of evidence-based practice, helping to inform clinical decisions and policy-making with the best available scientific evidence.

Evidence Based Practice Resources

Books about EBP

British Medical Journal- Recent Issues

  • Informatics hygiene to support reuse of routinely collected health care data for evidence-based practiceThis link opens in a new windowMay 20, 2025

    Healthcare data are increasingly collected in transactional systems such as electronic health records (EHRs) and aggregated into analytical systems such as clinical data warehouses (figure 1). Consequently, there has been significant interest in reusing these data for evidence-based practice, research, biosurveillance, quality improvement and other purposes. Despite enthusiasm and multiple successful use cases,1 2 reuse of clinical data remains challenging.3 There are challenges related to data (ie, bits and bytes stored in computer systems), information (ie, meaning of the bits and bytes) and knowledge (ie, conclusions drawn based on analyses of information).4 5 For example, data may be corrupted due to a hardware or software malfunction (data problem). Alternatively, the data may be correct, but the meaning or context may be lost. One famous example of information corruption occurred when institutional EHR data were transferred into a...

  • Gender and geographical bias in the editorial decision-making process of biomedical journals: a case-control studyThis link opens in a new windowMay 20, 2025
    Objectives

    To assess whether the gender (primary) and geographical affiliation (post-hoc) of the first and/or last authors are associated with publication decisions after peer review.

    Design

    Case-control study.

    Setting

    Biomedical journals.

    Participants

    Original peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019.

    Main outcome measure

    Manuscripts accepted (cases) and rejected for publication (controls).

    Results

    Of 6213 included manuscripts, 5294 (85.2%) first and 5479 (88.1%) last authors’ gender were identified; 2511 (47.4%) and 1793 (32.7%) were women, respectively. The proportion of women first and last authors was 48.4% (n=1314) and 32.2% (n=885) among cases and 46.4% (n=1197) and 33.2% (n=908) among controls. After adjustment, the association between the first author’s gender and acceptance for publication remained non-significant 1.04 (0.92 to 1.17). Acceptance for publication was lower for first authors affiliated to Asia 0.58 (0.46 to 0.73), Africa 0.75 (0.41 to 1.36) and South America 0.68 (0.40 to 1.16) compared with Europe, and for first author affiliated to upper-middle country-income 0.66 (0.47 to 0.95) and lower-middle/low 0.69 (0.46 to 1.03) compared with high country-income group. It was significantly higher when both first and last authors were affiliated to different countries from same geographical and income groups 1.35 (1.03 to 1.77), different countries and geographical but same income groups 1.50 (1.14 to 1.96) or different countries, geographical and income groups 1.78 (1.27 to 2.50) compared with authors from similar countries. The study funding was independently associated with the acceptance for publication (when compared with no funding, 1.40; 1.04 to 1.89 for funding by association & foundations, 2.76; 1.87 to 4.10 for international organisations, 1.30; 1.04 to 1.62 for non-profit & associations & foundations). The reviewers’ recommendations of the original submitted version were significantly associated with the outcome (unadjusted 5.36; 4.98 to 5.78 for acceptance compared with rejection). Gender of the first author was not associated with reviewers’ recommendations (adjusted 0.96, 0.87 to 1.06).

    Conclusions

    We did not identify evidence of gender bias during the editorial decision-making process for papers sent out to peer review. However, the under-representation in manuscripts accepted for publication of first authors affiliated to Asia, Africa or South America and those affiliated to upper/lower-middle and low country-income group, indicates poor representation of global scientists’ opinion and supports growing demands for improving equity, diversity and inclusion in biomedical research. The more diverse the countries and incomes of the first and last authors, the greater the chances of the publication being accepted.

  • Perspectives of clinicians and screening candidates on shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a qualitative study (PROSHADE study)This link opens in a new windowMay 20, 2025
    Objective

    The objective of this study is to analyse the perspectives of screening candidates and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making (SDM) in prostate cancer (PCa) screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

    Design

    Descriptive qualitative study (May–December 2022): six face-to-face focus groups and four semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using ATLAS.ti software.

    Setting

    Data were obtained as part of the project PROSHADE (Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer) to develop a tool for SDM in PCa screening with PSA testing in Spain.

    Participants

    A total of 27 screening candidates (three groups of men: 40–50 years old; 51–60 years old and 61–80 years old), 25 primary care professionals (one group of eight nurses and two groups of physicians: one with more and one with less than 10 years of experience), and four urologists. Focus groups for patients and healthcare professionals were conducted separately.

    Main outcome measures

    Participants' perceptions of shared decision-making related to PSA opportunistic screening, including their understanding, preferences, and attitudes.

    Results

    Three themes were generated: (1) perceptions of SDM, (2) perceptions of PSA testing and (3) perceptions of SDM regarding PCa screening. Theme 1: screening candidates valued SDM when it included clear information and empowered them. There was consensus with primary care health professionals on this point, although their knowledge and implementation of SDM varied. Theme 2: candidates were divided on PSA testing; some trusted it for early detection, while others expressed scepticism due to concerns about false positives and invasive procedures, reflecting gaps in accessible information. Theme 3: professionals across primary and specialised care stressed the need for standardised SDM protocols. Primary care physicians were particularly concerned that PSA decisions align with scientific evidence and urologists recognised SDM as valuable in PSA testing only if it was adequately explained to each patient. Barriers to implementing SDM included insufficient coordination across care levels, lack of consensus-driven protocols and limited clinical time.

    Conclusions

    While patients expect comprehensive information, primarily based on practice to achieve empowerment, healthcare professionals face obstacles such as limited time and insufficient coordination between primary care and urology. All stakeholders agree on the importance of evidence-based tools to reinforce effective SDM and enhance collaboration across urologists and primary care in the context of PSA testing.