Exam Study Flashcards
(42 cards)
Evidence Based Practice
Practice supported by scientific evidence, expertise and client questions
- best research evidence
- clinical expertise
- patient values
A combination of these three to achieve evidence based practice
Allocation Bias
(intervention bias)
Difference between treatment and control groups of the start of the experiment
- allocation bias reduced by random allocation
Detection Bias
(intervention bias)
Difference in how treatment and control groups are assessed/measured
Performance Bias
(intervention bias)
Events other than intended treatment
Attrition Bias
(intervention bias)
Some types of participants leave study, setting up unwanted differences between groups in the background characteristics of participants
Measurement Bias
(intervention bias)
Outcomes measured inaccurately
Publication Bias
(systematic reviews)
Studies researching unpopular research topics or treatments don’t get published, unavailable to reviewers
Long Lag Bias
(systematic reviews)
Delay on publication prevents research being found by practitioners/reviewers in time for their reviewers
Duplicated Publication Bias
(systematic reviews)
Same results from same studies repeatedly published, suggesting there’s more evidence than really is
Outcome Reporting Bias
mainly desirable/expected/statistically significant results get published, even through other results equally valid/informative
Citation Bias
Study cited by many other authors, reviewers are more likely to find that research compared with studies that are rarely cited/not at all
Database Inclusion Bias
Studies more easily found if available from online database
Language Bias
preference among reviewers for studies published in language they understand, commonly English
Reviewer’s Personal Bias
Reviewers’ unfairly exclude an article because they don’t like topic/results, even though valid and relevant
Level 1: Systematic Reviews of RCT
Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant control trials
Reviews combines results of selected original studies to arrive at a summary conclusion
Advantages
> less costly to review rather than create a new study
> more reliable and accurate than individual studies
Disadvantages
> very time-consuming
> may not be easy to combine studies
Level 2: Randomised Controlled Trial
Randomly assigns participants into an experimental group or a control group
As the study is conducted, the only expected difference between the control and experimental groups in a RCT is the outcome variable being studied
Advantages
> results can be analysed with well known statistical tools
> good randomisation will ‘washout’ any population bias
Disadvantages
> expensive in terms of time and money
> volunteer biases - population in participants are from may not be completely representative
Level 3.1: Pseudo-randomised Controlled Trial
Same as RCT, but participant allocation to treatment/control not genuinely random, could be approximately random
Advantages
> less effort into random allocation
Disadvantage
> risk of allocation bias
Level 3.2: Cohort - Study
One or more samples (cohorts) are followed prospectively and evaluations with respect to disease or outcomes are conducted to determine which exposure characteristics (risk factors) are associated
e.g. start with group of healthy people (no disease) and follow over time to determine risk factors associated with getting disease
Advantage:
> standardisation of criteria/outcome is possible
> easier and cheaper than RCT
Disadvantage:
> no randomisation, meaning imbalances in patient characteristics could exist
Level 3.3: Case-Control Study
Compares patients who have a disease/outcome of interest (cases) which patients who don’t have the disease/outcome (controls)
looks retrospectively to compare how frequently the exposure to a risk factor is present in each group to determine relationship between risk factor and disease
Advantage:
> good fro studying rare conditions or disease
> lets you simultaneously look at multiple risk factors
Disadvantage:
> more problems with data quality because they rely on memory (recall bias)
> hard to find suitable control group
Level 4: Cross-Sectional Study
Captures information on a single treatment group only, at a single point in time
Advantage
> not costly/time consuming
> used to prove/disprove assumptions
Disadvantages
> doesn’t help determine cause/effect
Correlation and Correlation Coefficient
Describes the size/direction of relationship between 2 or more variables
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (r) Measures the strength/direction of linear relationships between 2 variables on scatter plot - value between 1 - -1
Probability Values
Enable us to quickly determine whether or not a relationship between variables is statistically significant
- lower p-value = less likely result due to chance
- p-value = p<0.05, statistically significant
PICO and PEO Formats
PICO > Quantitative
- P: population, patient, problem
- I: intervention
- C: comparison
- O: outcome
PEO > Qualitative
- P: population, patient, problems
- E: exposure
- O: outcomes and themes
Nominal
Used for labelling variables without quantitative value
Labels