Reference no: EM132003768

Question: Comment 1

Evidence-based practice is a conscientious, problem-solving approach to clinical practice that incorporates the best evidence from well-designed studies, patient values and preferences, and a clinician's expertise in making decisions about a patient's care. There are a variety of rating systems and hierarchies of evidence that grade the strength or quality of evidence generated from a research study or report. Being knowledgeable about evidence-based practice and levels of evidence is important to every clinician as clinicians need to be confident about how much emphasis they should place on a study, report, practice alert or clinical practice guideline when making decisions about a patient's care (AAFP, 2015). As the name suggests, evidence-based medicine (EBM), is about finding evidence and using that evidence to make clinical decisions. Physicians are encouraged to find the highest level of evidence to answer clinical questions.

The levels of evidence from strongest to weakest are as follows:

• Systemic review of experimental studies (well-designed randomized controlled trials [RCTs])

• Meta-analyses of experimental (RCT) & quasi-experimental studies

• Integrative reviews of experimental (RTC) & quasi-experimental studies

• Single experimental study (RCT)

• Single quasi-experimental study

• Meta-analysis of correlational studies

• Integrative reviews of correlational & descriptive studies

• Qualitative research meta-synthesis & meta-summaries

• Single correlational study

• Single qualitative or descriptive study

• Opinions of respected authorities based upon clinical evidence, reports of expert committees (Grove, Gray, & Burns, 2015, p. 24).

Thus, different types of research questions require different types of research designs. Therefore, an experimenter or researcher should always ask: is this research design appropriate (or as optimal as possible) for the research question? Therefore, from an EBMgt point of view, a study design is never strong or weak in itself: it all depends on the question and the availability.

Comment 2( Please answer the question at the borrow from my professor)in base to your comment)

YOUR POST in the last assignment is this (Extraneous variables may affect the dependent variable and can change the result of research. Extraneous variables are independent variables that are available in each investigation, for example, clamor, lighting, and temperature, or could relate to the subjects, distinctive foundations, identities, tallness, and weight. These are viewed as additional factors that change persistently and can be found in the subjects, and in the states of the investigation. An analyst might have the capacity to decline or control unessential factors by recognizing the factors that could influence the dependent variable. "To control an extraneous variable the specialist needs to initially distinguish those factors that are well on the way to impact the dependent variable. This is done in light of the specialist's presence of mind, basic consistent thinking, and experience." (Simmons, Benskin, Cosgrove, Duncker, Ekman, Martyniuk, & Sherry, 2015)

Extraneous variables ought to be controlled if conceivable. One approach to control extraneous variable is with irregular examining. Arbitrary inspecting does not kill any independent variable; it just guarantees it is equivalent between all gatherings. If arbitrary inspecting is not utilized, the impact that a superfluous variable can have on the examination comes about turn into significantly more of a worry. Once the extraneous distinguished it can be controlled by either holding variable steady or coordinating qualities crosswise over treatment conditions. Example, if there is boisterous development going ahead outside the room that the trial is being held, it might be exceptionally diverting, so the analyst can either locate a calm place to play out the exploration, or the scientist can hold the incidental factors consistent by making an institutionalized domain, and method with the goal that all factors are the same in each condition and along these lines cannot be bewildering.