Melnyk, B.M. & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). "Box 1.3: Rating system for the hierarchy of evidence for intervention/treatment questions" in Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 11). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health.
rating system for the hierarchy of evidence melnyk
About Levels of Evidence and the Hierarchy of Evidence: While Levels of Evidence correlate roughly with the hierarchy of evidence (discussed elsewhere on this page), levels of evidence don't always match the categories from the Hierarchy of Evidence, reflecting the fact that study design alone doesn't guarantee good evidence. For example, the systematic review or meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are at the top of the evidence pyramid and are typically assigned the highest level of evidence, due to the fact that the study design reduces the probability of bias (Melnyk, 2011), whereas the weakest level of evidence is the opinion from authorities and/or reports of expert committees. However, a systematic review may report very weak evidence for a particular practice and therefore the level of evidence behind a recommendation may be lower than the position of the study type on the Pyramid/Hierarchy of Evidence.
The pyramid below represents the hierarchy of evidence, which illustrates the strength of study types; the higher the study type on the pyramid, the more likely it is that the research is valid. The pyramid is meant to assist researchers in prioritizing studies they have located to answer a clinical or practice question.
Qualitative studies are not included in the Hierarchy of Evidence above. Since qualitative studies provide valuable evidence about patients' experiences and values, qualitative studies are important--even critically necessary--for Evidence-Based Nursing. Just like quantitative studies, qualitative studies are not all created equal. The pyramid below shows a hierarchy of evidence for qualitative studies.
In contrast to the case-control and slightly higher on the levels of evidence hierarchy,3 the cohort study is usually done in a prospective fashion (although it can be done retrospectively) and usually follows two groups of patients. One of these groups has a risk factor or prognostic factor of interest and the other does not. The groups are followed to see what the rate of development of a disease or specific outcome is in those with the risk factor as compared to those without. Given that this is usually done prospectively it falls higher within the hierarchy as data collection and follow-up can be more closely monitored and attempts can be made to make them as complete and accurate as possible. This type of study design can be very powerful in some instances. For example, if one wanted to see what the effect of smoking was on nonunion rates, it wouldn't be ethical or generally possible to randomize patients with fractures into those who are going to smoke and those who are not. However, by following two groups of patients, smokers and non-smokers with tibial fractures for instance, one can then document nonunion rates between the two groups. In this case, because of its prospective design, groups can at least be matched to try and limit the bias of at least those prognostic variables that are known, such as age, fracture pattern or treatment type to name a few.
"Figure 2.2 [in context of book] shows our eight-level evidence hierarchy for Therapy/intervention questions. This hierarchy ranks sources of evidence with respect the readiness of an intervention to be put to use in practice" (Polit & Beck, 2021, p. 28). Levels are ranked on risk of bias - level one being the least bias, level eight being the most biased. There are several types of levels of evidence scales designed for answering different questions. "An evidence hierarchy for Prognosis questions, for example, is different from the hierarchy for Therapy questions" (p. 29).
Regarding the importance of real-world clinical practice settings, and the conflicting tradeoffs between internal and external validity, Polit and Beck (2021) write, "the first (and most prevalent) approach is to emphasize one and sacrifice another. Most often, it is external validity that is sacrificed. For example, external validity is not even considered in ranking evidence in level of evidence scales" (p. 221). ... From an EBP perspective, it is important to remember that drawing inferences about causal relationships relies not only on how high up on the evidence hierarchy a study is (Figure 2.2), but also, for any given level of the hierarchy, how successful the researcher was in managing study validity and balancing competing validity demands" (p. 222).
Polit and Beck note Levin (2014) that an evidence hierarchy "is not meant to provide a quality rating for evidence retrieved in the search for an answer" (p. 6), and as the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine concurs that evidence scales are, 'NOT intended to provide you with a definitive judgment about the quality of the evidence. There will inevitably be cases where "lower-level" evidence...will provide stronger than a "higher level" study (Howick et al., 2011, p.2)'" (p. 30).
"The 6S hierarchy does not imply a gradient of evidence in terms of quality, but rather in terms of ease in retrieving relevant evidence to address a clinical question. At all levels, the evidence should be assessed for quality and relevance" (Polit & Beck, 2021, p. 24, Tip box).
In order to make medicine more evidence-based, it must be based on the evidence found in research studies with higher quality evidence having more of an impact than lower quality evidence. Evidence is ranked on a hierarchy according to the strength of the results of the clinical trial or research study. The strength of results can be impacted by a variety of factors such as the study design, outcomes, and bias, as well as the results themselves.
In line with the second objective, two authors (JB, EP) independently appraised the quality of evidence following a modified 7-level rating system for the hierarchy of evidence [24]. This tool provides a hierarchy of the likely best evidence (e.g. Levels 1 to 7) and is specifically designed to aid clinicians (and patients) with a rapid appraisal to avoid the need to resort to original sources. Differences in levels of evidence between authors were discussed and agreed upon in a consultative process.
Third, formal liaisons and partnerships between ambulance services, primary care, urgent care centres, minor injury units or psychiatric and social teams are crucial in facilitating referral or alternate transportation of patients. Without well-established pathways of care, ambulance clinicians are forced to rely on ad hoc decisions and, as a result, are often unsuccessful in finding an appropriate alternative source of care [32]. This must be a consideration when considering implementation of schemes in different countries or regionalised ambulance services, which may limit availability of alternate facilities. Finally, the most important and persistent recommendation in quantitative, qualitative and consensus-based studies was the need for adequate evidence demonstrating patient safety. It was commonly suggested that the current evidence was not sufficient to justify implementation of such schemes; this is described further below.
Assessment of pain in patients with a diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment continues to be underdiagnosed as there are no objective ways of assessing their pain. Available evidence also indicates that these patients are not receiving satisfactory pain management. Due to a lack of self-reporting of pain, accurate assessments of pain are challenging. This systemic review aimed to find a pain assessment strategy effective in identifying pain in patients with a diagnosis of dementia. Kolcaba's theory of comfort was used as the theoretical framework for the study. The databases of Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL) Plus for data concerning pain assessment strategies for cognitively impaired patients published in the last 7 years were searched. Each article was assessed accurately, and data were obtained and analyzed. Four hundred twenty-two reviews were retrieved, of which 8 met the criteria for inclusion. SQUIRE 2.0 was used for the appraisal of the included literature. The literature qualified for the inclusion criteria was then analyzed for the level of hierarchy and grading of evidence according to the Fineout-Overholt, Melnyk Stillwell, and Williamson system. Based on the available evidence, no one pain assessment tool can be recommended. Instead, involving the interdisciplinary healthcare team, family, and caregiver/s along with the observational pain assessment tool can be effective in assessing pain for a patient with cognitive impairment. This project impacts social change by providing a pain assessment strategy for patients with a cognitive impairment.
A common model used to guide behavioral counseling is the 5As model, which involves five steps: (1) assess health behavior; (2) advise briefly about health risks and benefits of change; (3) agree on collaboratively set goals; (4) assist to identify and overcome barriers; and (5) arrange for follow-up. Although this model offers a framework that is evidence-based and moves nurses beyond health education alone, health behavior change is difficult and failed efforts to help patients can be frustrating to clinicians.17
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. Unfortunately, no standard formula exists for how much these factors should be weighed in the clinical decision-making process. However, 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. 2ff7e9595c
Comments