The levels of evidence are regarded as a hierarchy in the form of a pyramid that offers a representation of research aspects from the least dependable at the bottom to the most steadfast at the summit. Comprehending the levels of evidence is imperative as the research is used to execute evidence-based practice alterations together with clinical proficiency. Consequently, nurses should comprehend the diverse levels of evidence and their dependability to guarantee that practice deviations are founded on the best accessible evidence. Beginning from the pyramid’s summit heading towards the bottom, there exist seven levels of evidence. The levels comprise meta-analyses and systematic appraisals, acutely appraised subjects, significantly appraised individual articles, randomized organized trials, cohort studies, case-controlled studies, background data, and professional sentiments.
Systematic evaluations characterize the highest level of evidence, as they collate every scientific study on a specific subject. Meta-analyses are similarly seen as level 1 evidence, and they comprise combined analyses of numerous randomized controlled tests. This level of evidence may be suitable for making any evidence-based practice alterations, as it is regarded as the uppermost level of evidence. It is significant to understand that as the level of evidence surges up the pyramid towards the first level, the number of researches accessible declines. Notwithstanding the availability of the highest level of evidence, those conducting research might be compelled to scale down the pyramid to conduct research.
Different types of research studies best answer diverse clinical queries. As a result, evidence-based practice modifications must be applied founded on research outcomes from the preeminent approaches to respond to the clinical query (Northern Virginia Community College, 2019). For instance, clinical queries revolving around therapy subjects are best responded to by randomized meticulous tests and meta-analyses. However, cohort researches, case-control researches, and case series may similarly be suitable. The practice modification of the type of medication regarded as best for specific disorders might thus be founded on any of these research firms. Another instance is that etiologic medical queries are best responded to by cohort research, meta-analyses, and meticulous randomized trials. As a result, the study outcomes might be used to make practice alterations to restrict the integration of Foley catheters founded on the devaluing that Foley catheters increase the patients’ chances of getting urinary tract infections.