Effectiveness of Systematic Reviews and Meta- analysis Webinar on Knowledge and Level of Satisfaction among Delegates across India
Keywords:
Systematic reviews, Meta-analysis, Effectiveness, Knowledge, SatisfactionAbstract
Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are being used increasingly to summarise the literature and identify areas in which research is needed. Systematic reviews limit bias with the use of the reproducible scientific process to search the literature and evaluate the quality of the individual studies. The primary aim of this article is to review the concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, outlining the importance and describing various methods to do systematic reviews with the help of webinars.
Method: The pre-experimental research with one group pre-test and post-test research design was adopted for conducting the study at the School of Nursing Science, Sharda University. A total of 220 participants attended the webinar and 159 participants met the inclusion criteria. The knowledge questionnaire was made to assess the knowledge of the participants related to the systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The level of satisfaction was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale.
Results: The results showed that the mean post-test knowledge score (16.90) was significantly higher than the mean pre-test knowledge score (8.10). The calculated “t” test was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). The participants were found to be 100% satisfied with the webinar.
Conclusion: The study concludes that systematic reviews and meta-analysis webinars have proven to be effective in increasing the knowledge as well as the satisfaction levels of the participants.
How to cite this article:
Bhardwaj UD, Kumar RSR, Sivasanker AA. Effectiveness of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Webinar on Knowledge and Level of Satisfaction among Delegates across India. Trends Nurs Adm Edu. 2022;11(1):1-4.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2348.2141.202201
References
Green S. systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Singapore Med J. 2005 Jun;46 (6): 270-3; quiz 274
Kumar Ganesh P, Kumar Arun. Evaluation of computer usage in healthcare among private practitioners of NCT Delhi. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169(3):960-4.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA.Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ,1996 Jan 13;312 (7023):71 2.
S.Gopalakrishnan, P.Ganeshkumar. Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013 Jan-Mar;2 (1): 9-14 doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934
Moher D, Liberti A, Tetzlaff J. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6 (7) :e1000097.
Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ, 2004 Jan 3; 328 (7430): 39-41.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1: 126 (5): 376-80.
Clark M. The Cochrane Collaboration and systematic reviews. Br J Surg 2007 Apr; 94 (4): 391 -2.
Greenhalgh T. Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses). BMJ. 1997; 315 :672-5.
Higgins JPT, Green S. The Cochrane collaboration. Crochane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 510. 2011. Available from http:// training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Urmila Devi Bhardwaj, R Sree Raja Kumar, AmritaAkhilesh Sivasanker
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright is retained by the author(s) in all articles since 2020.
