Reply 1 and 2 ,150 words each one by 06/04/2021 at 6:00 pm ,please add references and citations

Reply 1There are two methods when it comes to evaluating the evidence in nursing. These methods are:Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysesSystematic reviews are responsible for summarizing the results that are obtained fromresearch that has been carried out, in our case, controlled trials in the health care sector (Gough& Richardson, 2018). It is from these summary that valid and reliable conclusions can be made on the matter under trial. Systematic reviews are done in such a way that the results of multipleprimary study cases that are strictly related to each other are synthesized by the use of strategiesthat are meant to eliminate biases and error margin (Gough & Richardson, 2018).Meta-analysis is a combination of numerical data from different primary sources that focusedon the same objective, to produce a single approximation based on all the sources (Burgess,Thompson & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration, 2016). This estimation is more accuratebecause due to its nature of analyzing data from multiple sources. The researcher is in a positionto explain any inconsistencies in the case of their occurrence, quantify, and explore therelationship between the data (Burgess, Thompson & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration, 2016).Furthermore, it is an efficient way of using pre-existing data.Systematic reviews are well-detailed and transparent, whereas meta-analysis is simplyanalyzing data implying the latter is a more time-consuming procedure (Hyun Kang, 2018).There are times where systematic reviews would contain statistical data, but a meta-analysescannot include any overviews. Systematic reviews can consist of a narrative synthesis thatcombines data that are very different, while meta-analysis cannot be used to analyze data that vary from each other. For instance, the age of children in a specific region only, without some other cases.ReferencesBurgess, S., Thompson, S. G., & CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration. (2016). Methods for meta-analysis of individual participant data from Mendelian randomization studies with binaryoutcomes. Statistical methods in medical research, 25(1), 272-293.Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Koreanjournal of anesthesiology, 71(2), 103.Gough, D., & Richardson, M. (2018). Systematic reviews. In Advanced Research Methods forApplied Psychology (pp. 75-87). Routledge.Reply  |  Quote & ReplyReply 2Re: Topic 3 DQ 2Topic 3 DQ 2Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods.According to Joseph (2019), the two methods of evaluating evidence are quantitative and qualitative approach. The quantitative methodology entails assessing the data and comparing the various measurements used in the study under consideration. Standard deviation, mean or average, and other statistical parameters are some of the metrics used in quantitative evidence evaluation. Furthermore, the quantitative requirements must be measured or use formal procedures for prediction, ensuring objectivity of the outcome and the variables used.The assessment of the processes, meanings, experiences, and perceptions that research participants, including patients, have toward a particular variable under review is part of the conceptual framework used in qualitative ways of assessing evidence. As a result, no quantitative parameters are used in the qualitative method. Interpretation and application of emphatic comprehensions are used to assess relevant information, implying that the findings and variables are reliant on the research study’s context.ReferenceJoseph. M (2019), Methods of evaluating evidence in evidence based practice nursing. Retrieved from

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.