In Search of Evidence

Recommendations

Info

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses analyses and systematic reviews are also increasingly used in management. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are strongly promoted by the evidencebased practice movement because they are regarded as the most trustworthy and authoritative form of evidence (Briner & Denyer, 2012; Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008). However, even the results of a meta-analysis or systematic review can provide an extremely biased view, if the way in which the study is conducted contains serious flaws. In light of the weight attached to metaanalyses and systematic reviews it is therefore important for managers to be capable of evaluating such studies critically and assessing their value for management practice. The aim of this paper is to provide managers with a framework for critically appraising meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We will discuss the key aspects of this type of research as described in the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines (Higgins & Green, 2006), the MOOSE Guidelines (Stroup et al., 2000) and the QUOROM Statement checklist (Moher et al., 1999). Although these principles were developed in the medical sector, the methodological starting points and principles are applicable in any field where scientific research is conducted, from astronomy to zoology (Petticrew, 2001). To illustrate this, a well-known systematic review in the field of management will be assessed. The concept of a systematic review and a meta-analysis Systematic review vs. literature review The intention behind a systematic review is to identify as fully as possible all the scientific studies of relevance to a particular subject and to assess the validity and authority of the evidence of each study separately. As the name indicates, a systematic review takes a systematic approach to identifying studies and has the methodological quality critically appraised by multiple researchers independently of each other, as a consequence of which the review is transparent and reproducible. Apart from the systematic review, other types of reviews are also used, such as the conventional literature review, also referred to as a descriptive or narrative review. In a conventional literature review, a summary of scientific studies is provided, but a systematic approach to identifying these studies is not used. Furthermore, studies are often selected on the basis of the reviewer’s standpoint. As a result of the subjective manner in which the studies are identified and selected, there is a substantial risk of bias in the outcome
Chapter 6 (Antman, 1992; Bushman & Wells, 2001). For this reason, a conventional literature review is regarded as a less-authoritative form of scientific evidence than a systematic review. Meta-analysis vs. systematic review In a meta-analysis, statistical analysis techniques are used to pool the results of individual studies numerically in order to achieve a more accurate estimate of the effect. Most studies defined as systematic reviews include a meta-analysis; conversely, most studies defined as meta-analyses include a systematic review of the literature. The difference between a systematic review and a metaanalysis is mainly semantic. Indeed, in medicine a meta-analysis is often called a systematic review. For pragmatic reasons, we will therefore not differentiate between them and from now on refer to both types as a systematic review. Hierarchy of evidence: how strong is the evidence? The English-language literature deliberately uses the term ‘evidence’ rather than ‘proof’. Evidence is not the same as proof, but evidence can be so weak that it is hardly convincing at all or so strong that no one doubts its correctness (Offringa, Assendelft, & Scholten, 2008). It is therefore important to be able to determine which evidence is the most authoritative. So-called ‘levels of evidence’ are used for this purpose which specify a hierarchical order for the different research designs based on their internal validity (Guyatt et al., 1995; Phillips et al., 2001). The internal validity indicates to what extent the results of the research may be biased and is thus a comment on the degree to which alternative explanations for the outcome found are possible. When it concerns research questions about cause and effect (If I do A will B come out?), the pure experiment in the form of a randomized controlled trial 1 (RCT) is regarded as the ‘gold standard’, followed by non-randomized controlled trials (quasi- 1 In ‘controlled’ research two or more groups are compared with each other, usually comprising one group in which an intervention is carried out (intervention group) and one group where no or an alternative intervention is conducted (control group). In the case of randomization, the groups compared with each other are selected entirely randomly, for example by drawing lots. This means that each participant (or other unit such as a team, department or company) has an equal chance of being in the intervention or control group. In this way, the influence of any distorting factors is spread over both groups so that these groups are as comparable as possible with each other with the exception of the intervention.
Page 1 and 2:
In Search of Evidence Empirical fin
Page 3 and 4:
Barends, E.G.R. In Search of Eviden
Page 5 and 6:
promotoren: prof.dr.mr. S. ten Have
Page 7 and 8:
“Where evidence is strong, we sho
Page 9 and 10:
8 Becoming an Evidence-Based HR-Pra
Page 11 and 12:
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Seeing is Be
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 In Search of Evidence It
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1 addition, it was argued t
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 such studies critically a
Page 20 and 21:
CHAPTER 2 Learning From Other Evide
Page 22 and 23:
Learning From Other Evidence-Based
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
CHAPTER 3 Effects of Change Interve
Page 56 and 57:
Effects of Change Interventions be
Page 58 and 59:
Effects of Change Interventions mak
Page 60 and 61:
Effects of Change Interventions a d
Page 62 and 63:
Effects of Change Interventions Tab
Page 64 and 65:
Effects of Change Interventions to
Page 66 and 67:
Effects of Change Interventions wid
Page 68 and 69:
Effects of Change Interventions des
Page 70 and 71:
Effects of Change Interventions
Page 72 and 73:
Effects of Change Interventions dif
Page 74 and 75: Effects of Change Interventions Tab
Page 76 and 77: Effects of Change Interventions and
Page 78 and 79: Effects of Change Interventions stu
Page 80 and 81: Effects of Change Interventions REF
Page 82 and 83: Effects of Change Interventions Egg
Page 84 and 85: Effects of Change Interventions Phi
Page 86 and 87: CHAPTER 4 Difficult But Doable: Inc
Page 88 and 89: Difficult But Doable studies with a
Page 90 and 91: Difficult But Doable idea of conduc
Page 92: Difficult But Doable References Fan
Page 95 and 96: Chapter 5 Introduction Evidence-bas
Page 97 and 98: Chapter 5 Table 1 Quality criteria
Page 99 and 100: Chapter 5 A Rapid Evidence Assessme
Page 101 and 102: Chapter 5 studies were selected for
Page 103 and 104: Chapter 5 Most studies acknowledge
Page 105 and 106: Chapter 5 What are the implications
Page 107 and 108: Chapter 5 Factor 3. Information Sha
Page 109 and 110: Chapter 5 ‘freedom to act’, whi
Page 111 and 112: Chapter 5 manager’s support for t
Page 113 and 114: Chapter 5 During our discussions of
Page 115 and 116: Chapter 5 Vision and goal clarity 1
Page 117 and 118: Chapter 5 Connell, J., Ferres, N.,
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 5 Moore, A., & Mamiseishvil
Page 122 and 123: CHAPTER 6 Systematic Reviews and Me
Page 126 and 127: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyse
Page 144 and 145: CHAPTER 7 Managers’ Attitudes And
Page 146 and 147: Managers’ Attitudes and Perceived
Page 174 and 175:
Managers’ Attitudes and Perceived
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
CHAPTER 8 Becoming an Evidence-Base
Page 182 and 183:
Becoming an Evidence-Based HR-Pract
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
CHAPTER 9 Evidence-Based Management
Page 204 and 205:
Evidence-Based Management: The Basi
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
CHAPTER 10 Summary and General Disc
Page 222 and 223:
Summary and General Discussion in t
Page 224 and 225:
Summary and General Discussion meth
Page 226 and 227:
Summary and General Discussion The
Page 228 and 229:
Summary and General Discussion •
Page 230 and 231:
Summary and General Discussion comm
Page 232 and 233:
Summary and General Discussion prer
Page 234 and 235:
Summary and General Discussion the
Page 236 and 237:
Summary and General Discussion CONC
Page 238 and 239:
CHAPTER 11 Summary in Dutch: Samenv
Page 240 and 241:
Nederlandse samenvatting bij elkaar
Page 242 and 243:
Nederlandse samenvatting uitkomst v
Page 244 and 245:
Nederlandse samenvatting te voorkom
Page 246 and 247:
Nederlandse samenvatting weg te gaa
Page 248 and 249:
APPENDIX Teaching Evidence-Based Pr
Page 250 and 251:
Teaching Evidence-Based Practice: L
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260:
-Based Practice: Lessons From the P
Page 263 and 264:
Acknowledgments / Dankwoord Steven
Page 265 and 266:
Clare Peel, a big cheers to you for
show all

In Search of Evidence

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?