Evidence based practice within biomedical science
establishes clear, systematic review methods to assess quality development of practice
effectiveness. This in turn Improves healthcare quality and patient outcomes by
disseminating completed evidence reviews of practice effectiveness used to
identify evidence based laboratory medicine “best practices” as well this it Increases
engagement of laboratory professionals in quality improvement research and data
collection finally it Encourages recognition of laboratory professionals as
partners in healthcare policy and decision-making.
Evidence-based practice has done much to
advance healthcare, causing all methods of care to be based on the best
available credible evidence and to restrict the opinions of experts to be taken
only as opinions rather than proven facts.
Section B – importance of EBP
– PubMed Central (PMC) a full-text archive
of biomedical journal literature in association with the U.S. National
Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM).
– Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Their
Library offers an extensive collection of seven databases that contain diverse
types of high-quality, independent evidence to inform healthcare
decision-making, and information about Cochrane groups.
Paper B – will individuals at risk
of various forms of cardiovascular disease/problems have a definitive effect on
mortality rates by the introduction of aspirin treatment.
Paper A – Can the long-term supplementation
of aspirin with clopidogrel to an individual susceptible to cardiovascular
disorders such as coronary disease, peripheral arterial disease or ischemic
cerebrovascular disease reduce the risk of events more than aspirin alone?
Paper C – measures use of aspirin
among populations, as well as if differences in gender exists in the use of
aspirin for secondary prevention among people with Coronary Heart Disease (CDH).
Paper B – effectiveness of aspirin
for incidences of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all cardiovascular events
(MI, stroke, and cardiovascular deaths), bleeding complications, and all-cause
Paper A – Risk of all cardiovascular
events were the outcome measures used to differentiate benefits and negative
effects of adding clopidogrel to standard long-term aspirin therapy for
preventing cardiovascular events in people at elevated risk of cardiovascular
Paper C – A study of 1,869
participants that were 40 years and greater who reported CHD or prior
Paper B – A total of 48540 patients,
25133 patients received aspirin and 23407 received placebo.
Paper A – A review of 28,165 people using
two separate trials using individuals experiencing acute coronary syndromes.
Clopidogrel was given along with antiplatelet treatment
Paper B would be best for a busy practitioner.
It is a condensed version and It reviews several primary studies but as a
summary, producing the results needed in the shortest timeframe.
Paper C – reviews data from the
nationally representative 2000–2002 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys.
Paper B – Reviews of randomised
controlled trials from 1985 onward. (4 trials of meta-analysis in total)
Paper A – Paper A reviews data from two
randomised controlled trials.
Paper C – primary study.
Paper B – evidence- based journal
Paper A – systematic review.
Paper C – example of a study.
Paper B – a review of studies,
articles and meta-analysis – synopses
Paper A – Cochrane review, typically an
example of synthesis evidence
EBP Case Study