Systematic review involves a meticulous plan and search strategy, with the objective of minimizing bias by identification, appraisal, and synthesizing of all studies related to a specific topic. A systematic review usually includes a meta-analysis section that utilizes statistical methods to synthesize data from various studies into a distinct quantitative estimation. The paper explores the differences between systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, it will also address the strengths of quasi-experimental research design.
A systematic review is a detailed, comprehensive, and crystal-clear method of medical literature interrogation. Several steps are observed when using a systematic review design. These steps are asking a query that can be answered, identifying a single or several databases to source for the answer, establishing a straightforward search strategy, choosing titles, manuscripts, and abstracts on the basis of explicit inclusive and exclusive criteria, and conceptualizing data into a standardized format. On the other hand, a meta-analysis is a statistical method used in combining the data obtained from a systematic review. Therefore, each meta-analysis is done on the basis of the underlying systematic review. However, not every systematic review results in a meta-analysis.
Systematic reviews enable us to account for a whole range of appropriate findings from research on a specific topic. They can be utilized to determine whether the results of scientific research are consistent, including whether such findings can be generalized across populations, treatments, and settings or whether the outcomes vary across the subgroups. Furthermore, the clear methods employed in systematic reviews reduce bias and improve the reliability and accuracy of the conclusions.
Sometimes, there is a quantitative pooling of data from individual studies and reanalyzing of such data by statistical techniques in systematic reviews. The approach employed in this case is called meta-analysis. The technique increases the overall sample size by combining samples from individual studies, and this improves the statistical power of the analysis as well as the estimates of the treatment effects.
Strengths of Quasi-experimental Research Design
There are many advantages to using a quasi-experimental design. The technique is more feasible since there are no time and logistical constraints commonly found with other experimental designs. The method has no artificial research environment and thus gives genuine reactions to the test subjects. Quasi-experimental research design is crucial in the identification of general trends from the outcomes, mostly in social science fields. Besides, the results obtained from quasi-experimental designs can be utilized to reinforce case study findings by carrying out research that leads to statistical analysis. Extensive pre-screening and randomization are not necessary for quasi-experimental approaches, and this reduces the time and resources required for the research. Moreover, it is easy to identify and address the threats to validity when using the approach.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
