This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Evidence-based practice relies on using research evidence to guide clinical decision-making. However, staying current with all published research can be challenging. Many clinicians use review articles that apply predefined methods to locate, identify, and summarize all available evidence on a topic to guide clinical decision-making. This paper discusses the role of review articles, including narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews, to synthesize existing evidence and generate new knowledge. It provides a step-by-step guide to conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering key steps such as formulating a research question, selecting studies, evaluating evidence quality, and reporting results. This paper is intended as a resource for clinicians looking to learn how to conduct systematic reviews and advance evidence-based practice in the field.
Footnotes
- Correspondence: Jie Li PhD RRT RRT-ACCS RRT-NPS FAARC, 600 S Paulina St Suite 765, Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail: Jie_Li{at}rush.edu
Dr Li discloses relationships with Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Aerogen, the Rice Foundation, the American Association for Respiratory Care, and Heyer. Dr Li is a section editor for Respiratory Care. Mr Zaccagnini is an editorial board member for Respiratory Care and discloses funding from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé.
Dr Li presented a version of this paper at AARC Congress 2022, held November 9–12, 2022, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Supplementary material related to this paper is available at http://www.rcjournal.com.
- Copyright © 2023 by Daedalus Enterprises
Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$30.00
Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.
