Evidence-Based Medicine
Health science literature offers providers practice options that are evidence-based. Evidence gleaned from the literature can be determined "best practice" based on research methods and critical appraisal via the peer-review process. The Evidence Hierarchy is one way* to view some (not all) study designs, where they fit in, and the level of evidence they might provide.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses are typically positioned at the top because of the rigorous nature of their methodology in order to answer clinical questions.
*There is much debate over the use of the Evidence Hierarchy in the research community. One of the top reasons for the debate is the lack of fluidity in the structure of the hierarchy and the depiction of quality generally increasing or decreasing based on study type. Please note that this is just one way to view study designs in relation to one another and that quality is subjected to individual studies, their study teams, and the rigor with which the study is conducted.
Hierarchy of Evidence
Although interesting to research conversations, case studies and opinion papers don't provide the evidence necessary for providers to make sound treatment protocol decisions. Opinion papers are often authored by accomplished researchers, but they, along with case studies, don't generally provide generalizable evidence.
Randomized Control Trials and Cohort Studies make great contributions to the body of research literature available: however, they provide situational data relative to a typically smaller population and are not always able to make broad recommendations that can benefit or suite larger communities.
Critically-Appraised (or Peer Reviewed) articles - including systematic reviews and meta-analyses - offer research and provider communities the best evidence in order to make treatment or application recommendations to patients or peers. Also, check out the 3-minute video below for an overview on the peer-review process.
Peer - Review in 3 Minutes!
Librarian
