Describe the differences among a systematic review, an integrative review, clinical practice guidelines and a meta-analysis. Which has the most value in determining clinical practice and why?

Systematic review: This is an exhaustive, structured and rigourous approach for summarizing evidence about a specific research question. The systematic review involves the identification, selection, and critical appraisal of all relevant studies in order to produce a summary. The systematic review includes meta-analyses, in which statistical techniques are used to combine multiple studies’ results to give a better estimate of effect size.

Integrative Review: A synthesis of research combining data from mixed methods, qualitative and quantitative studies. By integrating findings of multiple studies, it aims to give a complete understanding of the phenomenon under study or research question.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines are evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing, treating, and managing specific diseases or conditions. The guidelines were developed by organizations or expert panels to aid healthcare professionals with making decisions.

Meta-analysis: This is a technique that combines the results from multiple studies to estimate the size of an effect. This involves selecting, analyzing, and combining data from various studies using statistical methods.

Clinical practice guidelines, which are based on evidence, provide the best recommendations when it comes to determining the clinical practices. They offer specific advice for diagnosis, management, and treatment of certain conditions or illnesses. These guidelines are created by experts or organisations and intended to help healthcare professionals make informed decisions regarding patient care.

However, meta-analyses, integrative and systematic reviews can also be valuable for determining the clinical practices. Systematic Reviews provide an overview of available evidence that can assist healthcare professionals in making informed decisions regarding patient care. Integrative Reviews synthesize information from various sources in order to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon under study. Meta-analyses are a way to combine results from multiple studies in order to get a better estimate of effect sizes, useful for clinical practice.