This paper is about:
Topic 1: Defining Internal and External Evidence
- Discuss the difference between external and internal evidence as it relates to your PICOT search strategy.
- Address the strengths and weaknesses of searching in a databank versus a web-based search engine. You must use two databanks mentioned in the text.
a. Needs to be 1 page
b.Use peer reviewed nursing articles, and give 4 references including website of where information was retrieved
C. No plagiarism, please
Additional Information
Difference in Levels of Information Resources as Evident by Haynes
In this unit you will become familiar with how to locate evidence, and understand the different types of evidence that can be discovered based on internal or external evidence.
For example, internal evidence is evidence that is applied in diagnostic reasoning, such as practice data found in a healthcare record. External evidence is found in randomized control trials and scientific research. Through these two types of evidence you can build your search strategy in reliable databases, to obtain the most relevant data for your particular topic.
Haynes is an authority in healthcare research that has been validated as an excellent resource for nurses in practice. In this unit you will have the opportunity to read about the levels of information resources that are available to you in practice. There are clear distinctions that can be used to determine levels of information. For example, not all evidence is created the same in the sense that some studies are unreliable because they are conducted without good science. You will learn how to find the best clinical evidence to build on evidence-based medicine.
Licensed Databanks and Web-Based Search
You will gain an understanding of the type of databanks that can be relied upon for reliable resource and evidence. At the completion of this unit you will be able to define the difference between evidence that is obtained from Web search and evidence that is found in licensed data banks.
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
The concept of evidence-based medicine is crucial in medical practice, and it entails utilizing the most relevant and reliable evidence to make informed decisions. As such, this paper will address two critical aspects related to evidence-based medicine, namely, the difference between external and internal evidence and the strengths and weaknesses of searching in databanks versus web-based search engines.
Question 1: Discuss the difference between external and internal evidence as it relates to your PICOT search strategy.
Internal evidence refers to data obtained from within a patient’s health records, including medical histories, physical exams, and laboratory results. It is applicable in diagnostic reasoning and can provide valuable insights into a patient’s health status. External evidence, on the other hand, is obtained from randomized control trials, scientific research studies, and systematic reviews. This information is useful in determining the extent to which different medical interventions and treatment options are beneficial to patients.
For a PICOT search strategy, internal evidence plays a significant role in developing a detailed understanding of the patient’s medical history and current health status. It helps in identifying potential healthcare problems, creating a list of differential diagnoses, and developing patient management plans. External evidence, on the other hand, provides relevant and reliable information necessary for making informed decisions on the best treatment options for patients.
Question 2: Address the strengths and weaknesses of searching in a databank versus a web-based search engine. You must use two databanks mentioned in the text.
Databanks such as CINAHL and PubMed Central offer reliable and trustworthy sources of information for evidence-based medicine. They rely on scientific research studies, systematic reviews, and randomized control trials to provide research-based information. Some strengths of using databanks include:
1. Access to peer-reviewed information: Databanks contain a wealth of peer-reviewed information that is reliable, trustworthy, and relevant to medical practice.
2. Systematic organization and indexing: Databanks have a systematic organization and indexing system that allows for easy searching and retrieving of relevant information.
However, despite the strengths, databanks also have certain weaknesses. For example:
1. Limited scope: Some databanks may have a limited scope on specific medical conditions, making it difficult to find relevant information.
2. Subscription fees: Databanks such as CINAHL may require a subscription fee to access information, which may be a challenge for some individuals.
In contrast, web-based search engines such as Google offer a wide range of information sources on medical practice, including scientific studies, blogs, and medical forums. The strengths of web-based searches include:
1. Wide range of information sources: Web-based searches provide access to a variety of sources and opinions, including relevant and vital medical information.
2. Free access: Unlike databanks, web-based searches are free to access, and an individual only needs an internet connection.
However, web-based searches also have a few weaknesses, including:
1. Reliability issues: Web-based information may not always be reliable, and there is a need for verifying the source of information.
2. Difficulty in verifying: As the internet is not controlled, it can be challenging to verify the sources of information.
In conclusion, while both databanks and web-based searches have their strengths and weaknesses, medical practitioners should aim at using reliable and relevant information to make informed decisions for evidence-based medicine.
References:
1. Haynes, R. (2013). Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. Evidence-based medicine, 18(6), 162-164.
2. Glanville, J. M., & Lefebvre, C. (2003). Chapter 6: Searching for studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2.
