Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) thinking and methods was acknowledged as one of high quality research methods in clinical medicine areas world widely. Little is known about quality and quantity of EBP development in non-clinical medicine fields in China.
Objectives: Systematically review all of EBP development in non-clinical fields in China.
Methods: Using literature searching strategy (‘systematic review’ AND ‘meta-analysis’ AND ‘evidence-based practice’) search CSSCI (Chinese Social Science Citation Index), CNKI (China Journal Full text Databases) combining with handing searching of other professional journals. Two groups of review authors applied inclusion criteria, assess trial quality, and extracted data independently.
Results: From 1998 to 2012, 188 items were identified initially; finally 67 items met inclusion criteria which was composed by 51 (76%) EBP conceptions, 11 (16%) systematic reviews (SR), 5 (8%) meta-analysis but not Sr. In Management Science, four items about EBP conception, one item about SR, four items using Meta statistical methodology. In Education Science, six items about EBP conception. In Library and Information Studies, 22 items about EBP conception. In Economic Science, 2 items about EBP conception and 2 items about Sr. Beside above disciplines, 17 items about EBP conception, 6 items about SR, and 1 item using Meta statistic methodology were found in other fields. Using AMSTAR to assess 11 included SR, calculated mean score was 6 (5–9): 4 SR < 6.1, 3 sr = 6, 4 sr > 6.
Conclusions: Both quantity and quality of EBP research in non-clinical medicine fields were low in China. The Campbell/Cochrane SR research methods should be advocated in non-clinical medicine areas in China, with the purpose of helping decision maker make reasonable decisions based on high quality research evidence. AMSTAR tool should be used to assess EBP in other fields than clinical fields in China.
Objectives: Systematically review all of EBP development in non-clinical fields in China.
Methods: Using literature searching strategy (‘systematic review’ AND ‘meta-analysis’ AND ‘evidence-based practice’) search CSSCI (Chinese Social Science Citation Index), CNKI (China Journal Full text Databases) combining with handing searching of other professional journals. Two groups of review authors applied inclusion criteria, assess trial quality, and extracted data independently.
Results: From 1998 to 2012, 188 items were identified initially; finally 67 items met inclusion criteria which was composed by 51 (76%) EBP conceptions, 11 (16%) systematic reviews (SR), 5 (8%) meta-analysis but not Sr. In Management Science, four items about EBP conception, one item about SR, four items using Meta statistical methodology. In Education Science, six items about EBP conception. In Library and Information Studies, 22 items about EBP conception. In Economic Science, 2 items about EBP conception and 2 items about Sr. Beside above disciplines, 17 items about EBP conception, 6 items about SR, and 1 item using Meta statistic methodology were found in other fields. Using AMSTAR to assess 11 included SR, calculated mean score was 6 (5–9): 4 SR < 6.1, 3 sr = 6, 4 sr > 6.
Conclusions: Both quantity and quality of EBP research in non-clinical medicine fields were low in China. The Campbell/Cochrane SR research methods should be advocated in non-clinical medicine areas in China, with the purpose of helping decision maker make reasonable decisions based on high quality research evidence. AMSTAR tool should be used to assess EBP in other fields than clinical fields in China.