• Users Online: 72
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Contacts Login 
ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 131-139

Analyses of evidence for hierarchy and levels of evidence: An exploratory quantitative synthesis


1 Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore-575001, India
2 Srinivas College of Physiotherapy, Pandeshwar, Mangalore- 575001, India

Correspondence Address:
Senthil P Kumar
Department of Physiotherapy, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Mangalore-575001
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1947-489X.210536

Rights and Permissions

Background: Among the recognized steps in EBP, evaluating and critically appraising research evidence on effectiveness of an intervention is an essential step that acts as a determinant in forming the link between obtained evidence and implementation in practice. Objective: To critically summarize and identify the results of analyses of levels of evidence published in journals indexed in PubMed. Methods: A systematic overview and quantitative analysis of selected 45 published reviews was performed to identify relevant themes in levels of evidence. The types of analyses (specialty-based, practice-based, journal-based, and conference-based) were categorized and sub-categorized for the studies on levels of evidence. Results: Of the 45 included studies, specialty-based analysis for levels of evidence were done in 12 articles, journal-based analysis in 5 articles, practice-based analysis in 25 articles, and conference- based analysis in 3 articles. Among the practice-based articles, 10 were on assessment and 15 were on treatment. Urology had more studies on analysis of levels of evidence, and very few studies analyzed journals and their content for the same. Three studies were analyses of conference abstracts, all of them in the field of orthopedics. Conclusion: There were greater number of studies on practice, in Urology, multiple journals, biomarkers in assessment, and equal representation of pharmacological and allied treatments. There is need for future reviews and analysis of levels of evidence in many unexplored areas of relevance


[PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed690    
    Printed52    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded94    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal